Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

This AfD was malformed and never transcluded. It is now listed. нмŵוτн τ 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.

The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.

An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic. Bsharvy (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great article and should not be deleted. Nobody is going to think EVERY article is a "well-defined" topic. Lots of physicists don't think that TIME is a well-defined topic! Just because You or Other people don't like it doesn't mean it has to be deleted. It's informative, well-written. it's a word that is in CONSTANT USAGE.

It doesn't use weasel words - it cites sources properly and adequately. BriEnBest (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bsharvy says it all. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that any article that can be improved should be improved. While this article may be riddled with problems, I fail to see how it is completely beyond hope. Wikipedia has articles for other types of racism such as Anti-Japanese sentiment and Islamophobia, so it should definately have one for Anti-Americanism. I suggest we edit and improve the current one, rather than delete it and create a completely new one. I also suggest that we remove it from the "nominated for deletion" page, since deleting it would be pointless and doesn't need to be considered as an option.Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the ONLY possible reason for deletion that could be satisfied is "content not suitable for an encyclopaedia", and frankly, the topic clearly IS suitable for an encyclopaedia. Yes it needs work done to it, but that work CAN be done, and the article shouldn't be deleted simply because you don't like it. Per the deletion policy page, Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page, and If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The article documents a worldwide sentiment, and that in itself is grounds for the article to exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Catgirl's suggestion that anti-Americanism is like racism is exactly why this article is hopeless. I don't think anti-Americanism is like racism or bigotry at all, and neither do any of the people I know who self-identify as anti-American. Neither do some prominent commentators, like Noam Chomsky (he says the opposite, that the label denotes bigotry against those who criticize US policies). So: to say anti-Americanism is bigotry is POV-pushing. To say anti-Americanism is not bigotry is POV-pushing. There is nothing that can be said that isn't POV-pushing. The only non-POV apporach is a usage guide, and that is not encyclopedic.

As for Mattbuck's comment: What "worldwide sentiment" does it document? Sentiment about the meaning of the term? That makes the article an elaborate dictionary entry: not encyclopedic. Sentiment about a phenomenon? What phenomenon? Nobody agrees.

I've worked on several controversial articles, but none of them had this one's main problem. When I worked on the Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki article, it was very heated, edit wars, etc. BUT: everybody knew what the bombings were. Nobody can agree on what phenomenon we are talking about when we talk about anti-Americanism. It simply isn't a term that denotes anything precisely. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is called anti-American, so is wanting to commit mass genocide against Americans, so is objecting to a Starbucks replacing a family-run cafe in Paris. There is nothing coherent here. Bsharvy (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an editor, instead of deleting the article, you should write a section on how "anti-americanism" is bigotry. That would improve the article. BriEnBest (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There are several academic books and articles on the phenomenon of 'anti-Americanism' therefore it is an encyclopediac topic. See for instance:

Berendse, Gerrit-Jan (December 2003). "German Anti-Americanism in Context". Journal of European Studies. 33. doi:10.1177/0047244103040422.
Buruma, Ian (2005). Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies. ISBN 1594200084. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Chesnoff, Richard Z. (April 2005). The Arrogance of the French: Why They Can't Stand Us--and Why the Feeling Is Mutual. Sentinel. ISBN 1-59523-010-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Dean, John; Gabilliet, Jean-Paul (1996). European Readings of American Popular Culture. Greenwood Press.
Fabbrini, Sergio (September 2004). "Layers of Anti-Americanism: Americanization, American Unilateralism and Anti-Americanism in a European Perspective". European Journal of American Culture. 23 (2): 79–94. doi:10.1386/ejac.23.2.79/0. ISSN 1466-0407.
Granatstein, J. L. (1996). Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism.
Hodgson, Godfrey (2004). "Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism". Journal of Transatlantic Studies. 2 (1): 27–38. ISSN 1479-4012.
Hollander, Paul (2004). Understanding Anti-Americanism: Its Origins and Impact at Home and Abroad.
Ickstadt, Heinz (2004). "Uniting a Divided Nation: Americanism and Anti-americanism in Post-war Germany". European Journal of American Culture. 23 (2): 157–170. doi:10.1386/ejac.23.2.157/0. ISSN 1466-0407.
Joffe, Josef (2006). Überpower: The Imperial Temptation. ISBN 0393330141.
Johnson, Chalmers Ashby (2004). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Henry Holt. ISBN 0805075593.
Larson, Eric Victor (2004). Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes toward the U.S. Rand. ISBN 0-8330-3584-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Markovits, Andrei S. (2007). Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America. Princeton UP. ISBN 0691122873.
Nakaya, Andrea C. (ed.) (2005). Does the World Hate the United States?. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Greenhaven Press. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
O'Connor, Brendon (July 2004). "A Brief History Of Anti-Americanism: From Cultural Criticism to Terrorism". Australasian Journal of American Studies. 23 (1): 82.
O'Connor, Brendon (2005). The Rise of anti-Americanism. Routledge. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
O'Connor, Brendon (ed.) (2007). Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, Themes (Four Volumes). Greenwood Press. ISBN 1846450047. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Pells, Richard (1997). Not like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture since World War II. New York: Basic Books.
Revel, Jean-François (2003). Anti-Americanism. San Francisco: Encounter Books. ISBN 159403060X.
Roger, Philippe (2005). The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226723690.
Rubin, Barry; Rubin, Judith Colp (2004). Hating America: A History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530649-X.
Serodes, Fabrice (2005). "L'anglophobie est morte! Vive l'antiaméricanisme?".
Strauss, David (1978). Menace in the West: The Rise of French Anti-Americanism in Modern Times. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313203164.
Sweig, Julia (2006). Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-58648-300-5.
Swindells, Charles J. (2005). "Anti-Americanism and Its Discontents". New Zealand International Review. 30 (1): 8+. ISSN 0110-0262.
Trommler, Frank; McVeigh, Joseph (1990). "Volume 2: The Relationship in the Twentieth Century". America and the Germans: An Assessment of a Three-Hundred-Year History. University of Pennsylvania Press.

If this article is bad editors are at liberty to improve it rather than deleting it. Just because a notion eludes certain editors understanding is no reason to delete the article on it. I don't understand quantum physics but that is no reason to delete the wikipedia article on it. Colin4C (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, Bsharvy really says it all. In his nom & especially in his deletion rationale. нмŵוτн τ 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So all the above academic articles and books are on a subject that doesn't really exist? Colin4C (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point that list is supposed to make. The problem isn't that "anti-Americanism" never refers to anything; the problem is that refers to just about anything--something racist, something reasonable, political dissent, terrorism, Burger King.... Pasting a list of article names which contain the term "anti-Americanism" (and many which don't) doesn't advance the discussion. I daresay many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers. Bsharvy (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You daresay that many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers? Could you, say, point to a few? Because having articles written on the subject is almost the definition of what WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V demand. You know, we haven't deleted abortion, even with claims that it's racist, reasonable, a show of political dissent, and terrorism... though I don't know that abortion has ever been accused of being Burger King.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; that's a easy way to deal with controversy, just delete. It's a real topic, very notable, very citable, as shown above from Reliable Sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm not sure how to be clearer. Anti-Americanism is not like abortion, because everybody knows what abortion is (in a non-scientific sense). The disagreements don't center on what is abortion. In contrast, every assertion of what is anti-Americanism constitutes POV-pushing. That is why the article never actually says what is anti-Americanism, other than quoting one dictionary. That is why almost every single claim the article makes about anti-Americanism must be in weasel words: "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is....". If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it.

Producing a list of article titles containing the term "anti-Americanism" doesn't address these points. (Also, half the articles in that list don't contain "anti-Americanism" at all; it would be nice if people put a little effort into the discussion.) Bsharvy (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a difficult article. So what. We have an article on anti-Semitism; should we delete that because people don't agree on what that means? Not every assertion about what anti-Americanism is POV-pushing; I have real trouble with the thinking patterns of anyone who asserts that proposing genocide against Americans is not anti-Americanism. Start with what's clearly defined as anti-Americanism and work your way out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is clear; there is that which you can say objectively about Anti-Americanism, which amounts to a dictionary definition; and there's the subjective stuff ("opinions are like assholes, etc.") which makes this article a soapbox magnet. Incidentally, the same holds for much of WP articles on anti-Semitism, especially New anti-Semitism, which I would also vote to delete. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bottom line is: there's ZERO reason to delete this article. And the reason that people are TRYING to delete it is because they are PREJUDICED AGAINST IT. And it should be obvious, given what the article actually is. IS THE "TERRORISM" ARTICLE GOING TO BE DELETED AS WELL? NO. But if militant muslims used wikipedia as much as americans did, I bet it would be. That proves that this article is subject to deletion BECAUSE OF PREJUDICE. I'm not going to sit by and let (maybe masses) of prejudiced people delete RANDOM articles JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THEM!

That is THE ONLY major issue with WIKI websites - is that masses of prejudiced or stupid people (Can I say that I'm not implying that anyone is prejudiced or stupid, and be believed, because BSHARVY does have some really good points - but I think she should edit the article, not delete it... ) can get perfectly informative, or ecyclopediatric articles CHANGED wrongfully or DELETED altogether, based on their VOTES. WIKI is NOT a democracy - it is DEFINED as a community where it's decisions are based on DISCUSSION. Deleting this article WILL BE considered an act of vandalism. BriEnBest (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BriEnBest, please be civil and assume good faith in your posts. You are right - wikipedia is NOT a democracy, it is not based on votes, it is based on consensus relative to the guidelines of wikipedia. If there is not a good reason to delete, it will not be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it." If some editors could write a description that's complete and not POV, this would settled. It's true, the editors haven't ever said "in their own words" what anti-americanism is. Rachel63 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this logic the wikipedia article on atoms should also be deleted. According to physicists the latter are either particles or waves or maybe both, depending on whether they are being observed or not: nobody is sure, not Bohr, Planck or Einstein and least of all wikipedia editors. Colin4C (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on atoms you cited begins with three in-depth paragraphs that neutrally describe what an atom is, written in editors' own words. It's neutrality is not limited to quoting the dictionary. The article on anti-Americanism never does that, and for good reason. The majority of the term's usage is an interpretation. It is an interpretation to say the French want to limit American influence because they dislike America. It is an interpretation to say people oppose the Iraq war because of hostility toward America. It may be objective to say terrorism against Americans is anti-Americanism. But is any editor willing to say, in the article, which claims of anti-Americanism are objectively grounded and which are not? No, because that would be POV-pushing. Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can a neutral article on it. Bsharvy (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all so called 'facts' about anything in the universe are in reality interpretations. As science progresses the old supposed 'facts' (in 'reality' crusty old interpretations way past their sell by date) are either discarded or re-interpreted. Newton gives way to Einstein. Einstein gives way to the Quantum theorists. As Descartes demonstrated the only thing we can really be certain of is 'I think therefore I am' = Cogito ergo sum. All the rest is supposition and theory which constantly keeps getting changed. There are no 'facts' just differing interpretations of that unknowable entity: 'the thing in itself'. Colin4C (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really compare a concrete object with an abstract concept. This bears no weight, and is irrelevant. нмŵוτн τ 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you grant that 'Anti-Americanism' is a concept? But one that it is not allowable for the wikipedia editors to allude to or examine or analyse? Like the Chinese wikipedia doesn't allow any mention of the concept of 'democracy'. A 'thought crime' maybe? Thinking is Verboten. Just obey. Colin4C (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anti-Americanism is clearly a form of bigory (in my opinion, mainly because hating a group is bigotry). Bigotry has an article, and this article is listed on it. None of those articles in that list violate Wikipedia guidelines on what kind of article is to be created. The article needs help on being rewritten or improved (such as Anti-Americanism not being a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French sentiment is a form of Francophobia, how contridictory is that?). Regardless, just because you do not like the idea of the article does not merit whether or not the article should stay. It is very much citable with reliable sources (didn't say all of them were). Just because the article is poorly written does not mean it needs to be deleted, just rewritten or improved as stated before. IronCrow (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a real topic with real sources... and is a very notable subject, especially in this period of time. That in itself makes it encyclopedic. Also, the sections on regional attitudes is very informative. I think that the article does need to be tweaked a little bit (for POV, make more concise, etc), but there is no reason to delete.Rigby27 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulytau

Doesn't assert notability in any way, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search suggests some activity by the band, but it's hard to assess notability without knowing more about the Kazakh/ex-USSR musical scene. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after almost nine months it is a one-sentence article. Could be speedied as not even an assertion of importance. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, so tagged. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z.O

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Chetblong^{T C} 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost a year old and still no indication of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow House Syndrome

O (zero) non-wiki ghits for "hollow house syndrome", reads like a magazine article (WP:OR?) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, term seems to have no use outside of the other Wiki cited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer. The article is referenced, but none of it indicates that this is a widely-used term. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NEO and synthesis of sources not even using the term or even directly addressing the concept. A couple of the references MIGHT help out at Second home ownership#Drawbacks, which covers some of the same ground. (There's also a wholly unreferenced article vacation property.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt by User:Jmlk17 just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D2jsp

Unremarkable piece of software and website. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia K. Robertson

Contested prod. No notability beyond major party candidate for public office; ample precedent and WP:BIO show that that's not sufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A candidate for office can also be notable by virtue of non-political accomplishments. In this case, the accomplishments listed don't seem to be enough to prove notability, but perhaps further research will turn up evidence that her volunteer or paid work has made her notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician with no other indications of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidate. Does not meet basic notability requirements for WP:BIO. Reads like advert/resume and likely posted to WP for (self)promotional purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the above notability reasons. I'd be for speedy delete, as its contents are cut and pasted from the candidate's website, including the photo, which has no copyright tag: patforbanffcochrane.ca/ Also, the user building the article has vandalized the subject's opponents' listings on Wikipedia, and has been entirely unresponsive to warnings. -- Yamara ✉ 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that its contents were a copyvio of the website. I'll tag as a speedy right away. Good catch. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizzard (band)

This article has no sources. It has no assertion of notability. There could be thousand of such bands, no of which should be on Wiki. Yes, they may exist, but that does not mean they should be on Wiki. Tried a speedy already, but have committed to a full afd under the recommendation of admins. Btline (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one fooled me, since Wizzard were a very well-known band in 70s Britain. If kept, thbis will need to be moved to another name (e.g., Wizzard (Finnish band)). If the consensus is delete, the title should be used as a redirect to the British band. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out the namespace is incorrect, but i think it will be irrelevant as i can't find much evidence of them having existed. --neonwhite user page talk 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:MUSIC suggests notability can be established by membership (Tero Kinnunen, Tapio Wilska , Sami Vänskä and members of Nightwish have been involved), releasing two or more albums with important indie labels (one was released by Spinefarm Records) or independent coverage (Encyclopaedia Metallum, The Metal Observer, Vampire Magazine). I'd say this was a borderline notable band based purely on what I could find on the web (which surely means there's more in print media). Sturm 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, some musical bands should be on Wiki. But remember, there are millions of bands, with only a fraction notable enough. This one is not. This is the main reason I listed it. So it is still delete for me. Btline (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hryb

I am not entirely convinced that this person meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability. No vote from me either way, I would just like to see if we can come to a consensus since this article has a habit of being re-created. RFerreira (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Director of Programming for Xbox Live - the largest console gaming network with over 10 million members. He has done over 100 official podcasts about Microsoft and Xbox. He has weekly segments on Inside Xbox. He co-host's a sirius satellite radio show. He also has the most popular gamertag almost every week. He owns one of the most popular blogs in the gaming scene getting over 2 million unique page hits. He is the inventor of the name the game contest which has been replicated by everybody and their mom. Oh, and as if that wasn't enough, he was voted the 9th most important person in gaming in 2006. I fail to see how he is not notable enough. --Magus05 ^(talk) 02:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very convincing arguments for inclusion, can you please cite some reliable sources for them? RFerreira (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Google, see how many articles pop up about him. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Director of Programming, 10 Million Members, 100 Shows (He started the numbering at 100), Xbox 101, Sirius Show, Top Gamertag, 20 million unique page hits in 2007, Name the game started in March 2005, #9 2006 Person of the Year. --Magus05 ^(talk) 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: What, are you insane? JAF1970 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Needs refs but clearly passes notability smell test. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering - this is the second attempt at AfD? Any particular reason why? JAF1970 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Reedy Boy 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tupolev Tu-204

No one cares about a dumb plane Girlgirlgirl (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic underground community

While there are some similarities between hackers, virus coders, and phone phreaks, I don't think these groups necessarily form a complete community. What this article really describes is three related but distinct communities. The topic is too vague and broad. This needs to be deleted. Nlm1515 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague and unsourced umbrella article. Most of the "communities" it claims to cover don't have articles of their own and if they did would probably be redundant. (Do we really need script kiddie and script-kiddie community? What is the gain?) --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantic Dream

This company has 1 cancelled game, 1 game that sold less than a million units, and some games that as of 2005, may or may not be ever released. Not notable at all. RogueNinja_talk 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was previously tacked onto the bottom of the previous AfD from 2005; I moved it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The games it has published seem to have deserved long articles and it seems notable but it doesn't seem to have much history for an article --Tombomp (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - AA7Why would this even be considerd for deletion? This is a sucessful company with two high profile games, one of which that has sold over 800,000 units. Im not sure why you would want to delete this. They also have another high profile game coming out entitled Heavy Rain which will certianly generate alot of atention. If this article is deleted now it will only have to be re-created in a few months when their game begins its marketing campaign. There is no logical reason to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.31.81 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - if the games deserve articles, then the company almost certainly does as well, and sales of 700,000 are non-negligible. But the article needs third-party references per WP:RS. Kalkin (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject requires reliable, independent coverage: Here's some on the first page of a google search: [1] [2] [3], etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Marasmusine's sources, misc other sources and puzzlement as to why this was nominated. They have two released games, not one, Omikron: The Nomad Soul featured input from David Bowie and received attention as a result of that. Indigo Prophecy won awards and received a lot of attention, what has failing to sell a million copies got to do with notability? Sources = notability and there's a boatload if anyone cares to look. Heavy Rain, should it fail to come to fruition, has received a lot of attention anyway, enough to either maintain a seperate article or be merged to this one. Someone another 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quantic Dream are still an up and running company. Delete the page for Elvis Pressly instead. He's not done much recently. 62.249.237.223 (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cellini (play)

Reason: non-notable, non-informative, no citations or references to this alleged play, no evidence of any publication, performance or review. Hence Delete - all it needs (if anything) is a mention in the WP article on its author. Smerus (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See here, here, and here. Kakofonous (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability demonstrated by Kakofonous's sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is no good you guys commenting on sources; the article lives or dies by what it contains - and there is no ref to these sources or any others in the article. If you like the article, edit it to include these sources - if you can't be bothered then you are tacitly agreeing that it is non-notable.--Smerus (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to include those sources very soon after I found them, see this diff. Kakofonous (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Viable search term. Redirecting to J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.. Please note, I'm not merging any content but I'm leaving the previous history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New traditional economy

Unused except by the Rossners in their works; GS shows essentially only their own papers or the title of such a paper when used in a citation. If substantial use can be shown otherwise, it should be documented in the article. DGG (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., since this is only person who seems to have written on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge seems fine to me. Rosser has been published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives which is one of the most respected economics journals, so it's not that he's off on some fringe, just that the terminology he uses hasn't caught on. I'd agree that transition economy doesn't adequately capture what's happening in Iran. But unless the phrase enters widespread use, it can just redirect to his article (which mentions the phrase and that this is an area he writes about.) --JayHenry (t) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, smerge optional. This is a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about keeping the redirect and making sure its mentioned in the Rosser article. DGG (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this should be either kept or merged as a section to Traditional economy. I attend a major institution in the field of economics and we have been including New traditional economy in our cirriculum since the early part of the decade. --Finalnight (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH of NN research. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pannist

Dicdef which should be deleted and merged with steelpan. Kakofonous (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge I don't think we need a separate article for pannists if we already have a steelpan article. Ideally, the steel pan article should cover all important aspects of steelpan including how people play them.Nlm1515 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lack of sufficient content to justify a separate article. The current definition could be transwikied to wiktionary. Addhoc (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~. Changing to Keep There is some precedence for separate articles for Pianist and Piano, Drum and Drummer, Violinist and Violin. I don't mean to sound waxy, this article for Pannist is stubby yes, but is it expandable? Are there famous pannists, or pannists from different schools of panning? Are there panning controversies, styles, contests or panning awards? I have absolutely no idea, it is way outside my little realm of expertise. I would be okay with a Keep and expand outcome if an music expert were to step in, but also a merge to Steelpan and then redirect if nothing else can be found. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, I came across these couple articles: Steelpan - Playing in De Band, Len "Boogsie" Sharpe, “Pan Life”: Transformation in Trinidadian-American Steelband Culture, among others, that seem to suggest that the idea of a pannist does seem to justify a separate article. I will get around to expanding it soon, hopefully. Kakofonous (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kakofonous, an FYI, as nominator, you can "withdraw" your nomination to see if it will close as keep, however keep in mind two other goodfaith editors have already agreed (more or less) with your nom statement. In any event, I urge you to quickly (as time permits of course) add what you can to the stub, especially the references. A list of references on an AfD doesn't mean anything if they aren't added to the article. Let me know if you'd like assistance. BTW, I like the phonetic (foe-nettic?) spelling of your name, as I've always quite enjoyed Cacophony. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding it as we speak. Kakofonous (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think there's certainly room for expansion (famous pannists etc.) for it to stand alone separate from Steelpan, but the article has thus far been without the necessary interested editors. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Habib

Was up for Afd in August 2005. Since then no effort to assert notability and no evidence that he is notable. Family, maybe. Himself, nope. Travellingcari (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Lea (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Agha Nader (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lwding Leonardo Salas

I don't think doing Spanish-language dubs of various roles in imported TV programs is enough to pass WP:BIO. Has almost no Google presence. And, by the way, that does indeed appear to be the correct spelling of his name. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of credits and references. He's a notable voice actor. There doesn't seem to be an article on him in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, though. --Eastmain (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:BLP, and WP:V. He may be great, and have a lovely, rich voice, but he's not notable, or at least there is no verifable proof that he's notable. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the list which Bearian has enumerated. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blueskins

Appears to be a promotional piece for a local non-notable band. This has been speedied once already, but given that this version has been around for a while I am reluctant to speedy it. The quotes given in the "notable quotes" section (a sign that this group is trying a little too hard to show notability) appear to be false as I can't find anything reliable that contains them. Core desat 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big in 2003 - see various BBC pages - [4], [5]. Have been covered by the NME [6]. Getting signed by Domino Records is pretty good for a "local non-notable band". Catchpole (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – though not that much coverage state-side, only about three to four hits. On the other hand, they do seem to be making quite an impression across the pond. See here for articles [7]. Shoessss | Chat 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There is some media coverage, reviews, etc. They have an LP on a prominent label, who have signed bands such as Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys. They are up and coming and are certainly a regionally notable band. --Rigby27 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Scott

Fails WP:BLP, lack of secondary sources; full of external links which can be considered as WP:SPAM; the only (disputable) notability reason may be related to the reference of opt-in method invention, but simple web-search reveals Ryan Scott Druckenmiller, not Ryan Scott. Mserge (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of 'sources', but very few reliable ones; and those that are have virtually no mention of Ryan Scott himself. NetCreations may be marginally notable, but Mr. Scott certainly is not. Terraxos (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former name was Ryan Scott Druckenmiller. Search using former name provides innumerable reliable sources. Notability is subjective. LevyM (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about tagging cleanup/nofootnotes/notability, waiting 2-3 months and re-listing if nothing happens? -- Lea (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with above. This is a borderline case — he might be notable, though this looks a bit like vanispamcruft. Links from Busines Wire are often suspect, since that is merely a "wire service" that distribute press releases, so they are often primary sources. Fix it, then let's revisit the issue. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page contains 24 external sources of which only 5 mention the subject. Of these, no sources can be used to confirm notability of the subject's biography. 89.252.27.234 (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lacks reliable sources, notability not proven, fails WP:CORP. Ѕandahl 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Firewall

Proprietary technology used in single product (advertisement); notability improbable given Google results for "Disk Firewall". Lea (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the fact that the article should be removed, while I agree that it should be improved.

If we get to the bottom of this, it is not a proprietary technology, it is a "file system filter driver". The problem is that this won't ring any bells to a reader who is not a kernel mode programmer and has no clue what a "filter driver" means. I think references to the relevant articles about drivers should be added.
When it was first launched, there were no similar filters in other programs, so I don't see a problem with "Disk Firewall" being used as a name (at least at that time).
Perhaps it should be renamed to "File system filter" or "File system firewall" (this being a generic name, while "Disk Firewall" is the name given to one of the implementations of such a mechanism). The drawback is that there are many other ways in which a filter driver can alter the behaviour of a file system, so "Disk Firewall" is a mechanism which deserves a spot of its own (because it clearly states how this filter is different from other filters, by using network firewalls as an analogy).
There are other examples of technologies that have a dedicated entry; ex: Starforce, while in reality it is 'just' another flavour of DRM.
At the time of this discussion, there are already several programs that provide such a feature.
The technology is going to become more popular in the future, the idea is that such a mechanism makes antiviruses redundant, so it is of reason to assume that the security conscious will migrate towards such an approach. Gr8dude (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without contesting any of your individual arguments: Do you have external sources to back up the notability claim? There are a lot of new developments in computer security and kernel development; most of them are not notable. For instance, has the technology been talked about in independent reliable sources, and can you provide references for the technology's usage in "several programs" without resorting to OR? -- Lea (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference in the article itself (another vendor, calling their mechanism the same way), and here are some alternative stories about this: The Decline of AntiVirus and the Rise of Whitelisting, Symantec and McAfee should stop crying about Vista, Application Control - Whitelists for Controlling Malware; look for 'whitelist'. They are discussing the concept of the mechanism, but not the way it is implemented in the system, which is why in neither case you will see 'disk firewall', or any references to kernel mode programming (with the exception of the article on ZDNet).Gr8dude (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that this whitelisting can equivalently be called "Disk Firewall" is WP:original research. -- Lea (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. I guess it is more appropriate to extend the Whitelisting article if necessary, since it also contains sections to various uses of whitelists.Gr8dude (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Question to the experts (closing admin?): Is there a (standard) way to allow for more time for merging and delete then? -- Lea (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided by Gr8dude are blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources, and do not establish notability. I'd oppose merging the content as well; if a product is non-notable, it generally shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, stealth spam that seems to be trying to sidestep vanity/promotion issues by claiming broader usage. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; article about a tech product that lacks any reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I Loathe You

Was proposed for deletion, but contested. Reason for deletion: an entire article based on a book predicted in the author's blog. She says she'll *start* to write it in May! Tony Sidaway 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If she ever gets around to writing it, finishes it, and it gets published, we can revisit the issue. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speculative, WP:CRYSTAL -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat among the Pigeons (Cat Royal)

This provides no references, there is no indication that the book, or the series of which it is part, is notable, and the article is no more than a plot summary plus basic details like author, publisher and ISBN. It was PRODded on the grounds of "no information" at a time when the article was only an infobox; the creator removed the PROD when adding the brief plot summary. So it needs to come here. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Cat Royal series, as a whole, is notable. The first book, The Diamond of Drury Lane, won several awards: [8], [9]. This book may pass WP:BK individually; let me poke around a bit to see if I can find. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't find much of substance. But it seems reasonable to either 1) include a short synposis of this book at the end of The Diamond of Drury Lane or 2) start a new article on the entire series and merge the info there. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) could be the way to go - another editor has been creating three-line plot-summaries of other books in the series and getting them speedied, but they might fit into a series article. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A merge to an article on the entire series would be better; but as the sequel to an award-winning book, I'm prepared to accept that this may be a notable subject for an article. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djolé

Notability not asserted (and improbable, looking on Google/Google Scholar). Lea (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs added, article asserts that the dance has both history and popularity, and this is confirmed in the sources consulted. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really convinced. The one reliable source[10] only mentions it peripherically. I've cleaned the article up a little, but the references are horrible, all specific references being (non-reliable) personal web pages. -- Lea (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rescue-tagged it, perhaps someone else knows how to dig up more sources for this. -- Lea (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - concur the single reliable source only gives a brief mention. However web searches for this topic aren't a good indicator of notability. Addhoc (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is a notability indicator then? I can't find anything on Google Scholar or Google Books either, off the bat. -- Lea (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just assume good faith - that the author of the single RS wasn't making this up, and that there aren't likely to be many references to traditional African tribal dances on the internet? In any case, I found a ref to a USVC professor talking about Djole - surely she's not making it up as well? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, just looked and I'd forgotten to press save! See current version. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't contesting that this dance exists, just that it's notable. Re USVC professor: I couldn't find it on Google right now and I believe you're not refering to one of the existing references — care to add the reference you found to the article (e.g. as a bullet under References [or just put it on the talk page])? -- Lea (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's difficult to find super-reliable sources I have little reason to doubt those that are included and others that are found under the variant spellings. Given that this is a non-English term from a part of the world with limited internet resources, I'm willing to be more flexible in the interests of countering systemic bias. Looks real enough, and there are probably other resources that can be found by someone with access to offline references. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, given that we have a decent amount of sources now. -- Lea (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alkonost (band)

This page was previously listed at AfD. A Deletion Review overturned that closure as poorly founded. However, some doubt remains whether the sources that have been found are enough to show that the band meets WP:N. I feel that there hasn't been enough presented to write a good article and so recommend Deletion unless better sources (whether in Russian hard copy or whatever) are found. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference to claim the criterion 4 ("Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"). Not to mention the fact that they've got 5 studio albums. Óðinn (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least 2 of their albums have been released by a Dutch label Vic Records. Criterion 5 is thus satisfied as well. Óðinn (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have just enough coverage in reliable sources, although I don't read Russian. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thruport

I do believe it fails WP:WEB. The sources are not notable enough to constitut an article. Plus, the sources only give a brief interview with the founder about the company. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not to mention WP:CORP. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails everything. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reached. Redirecting doesn't seem viable at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dodd

Speedy deletion requested and hang-on posted. Article does not appear to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural nomination appears to fail inclusion guidelines. --VS ^talk 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic lists quite a few credits[11], but a lot of them seem to be for other jobs so not the same guy. Maybe there's something there? --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 Richard Dodd(s) on the All Music Guide page. 1 is a producer/engineer, this page is for Richard Dodd, Cellist. That is a mistake on All music guide that they don't remedy. This notation of the 2 existing Richard Dodd(s) in the recording industry will be included, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahleearebee (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable appearances, recording and contract with major label satisfies Notability AFAIC. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Section Quartet. TV appearances are unsourced, and if they're cameos they're non-notable at WP:MUSIC anyway. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the articles about his other serious projects. Resume as a guest artist is impressive, but not justification for his own article. No solo projects, no international tours, no competitions mentioned. The only notable project he seems to have is the Section Quartet. SingCal 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete i could find no mention of him outside of the group he is in, which is not notable enough to justify a page for each article. Also, the subject seems to be the primary editor (User:Cellodick) --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing substantial has turned up since my comment. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect. This one's a bit tricky. The other Richard Dodd, as a Grammy winner, actually makes a better presumptive case for meeting WP:MUSIC. This Richard Dodd is a member of a clearly notable band, but he's dabbled in enough other stuff that I'm not convinced a redirect is the right answer. So, I lean towards keeping the article and seeing if the other stuff can be sourced. Also, a redirect might be confusing on the off chance that someone comes looking for info on the other Richard Dodd.--Kubigula (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villiers-en-Plaine

Not notable. Very limited amount of information; it's articles like these that unnecessarily use Wikipedia's bandwidth. ^F*^L*^RAP 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Long-standing consensus says that all towns, villages, etc. etc. are inherently notable. "Very limited amount of information" is not per se a reason for deletion; Wikipedia has millions of stubs, and most of them could easily be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Already discussed and approved in an AN/I discussion . Who is this guy to assume its not notable? Thats laughable sorry. You could probably find all sorts of articles to write on places in the town let alone a main article. *Offical site proves this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns/villages are inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit of bandwidth. --Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid stub. Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would hardly be a comprehensive encyclopedia if we just 'ignored' certain places. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even small villages are inherently notable. As Ten Pound Hammer mentioned, this has been Wikipedia's practice for a long time. Paper encyclopedias have long listed smaller villages than this, at least in the countries they are marketed to. "Bandwidth" (really, storage space) is not in such short supply as the nominator seems to think, and we have more of it than any paper encyclopedia. Cardamon (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Lights (strain)

AfDs for this article:

I first nominated this article on 30 November 2007, as it was unsourced and the article did not assert the notability of the subject. The article has not been modified to any great extent since then, so I am relisting on the same grounds. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I must first say I am NOT a pot smoker :-), But having read up on this "strain" it appears that this was one of the first hybrids of cannabis that has "shown no signs of inbreeding depression after decades of incestuous crosses"[12]. Although I am no expert of the subject, I have added some references. It really needs to be improved by a ~~pot-head~~ expert... :-) Fosnez (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the strain may well be notable, but my point is that the article doesn't assert this. There are a lot of marijuana stubs around, and I wonder if they shouldn't all just be grouped into a single Marijuana strains article. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree the strain is notable, then the article should not be deleted, and sources should be looked for. DGG (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, there seem to be a lot of strains around, having them all in the one article would make it large and ungainly. I'm not expert on botanical classification, so I'm not shore how it works, but if you look at Poppy all the different strains seem to have their own articles. Fosnez (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No objection to merging into a Marijuana strains article per JediLofty. Addhoc (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Smoke~~ Delete, no evidence that this is a notable strain. No objection to a marijuana strains article, myself, even though I would rather sit in a tub full of Ginsu knives than smoke marijuana... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To restate what I said in the prior nomination: "Delete per nom due to lack of reliable sources published about the subject" -- this still stands and has yet to be resolved. RFerreira (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been added, and a casual search for "northern lights" along with pot-related terms gives tens of thousands of (no pun intended) "hits" It's also been mentioned in this amusing article from the BBC [13] Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ANYONE WHO VOTES KEEP IS A MARIJUANA SMOKER! :-P ...just kidding. I've heard of it too but without RS we should delete. --Explodicle (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are several secondary sources, of which are books, journals and newspaper articles. I just added a bunch more to the page... here they are:
Advances in Hemp Research
The Big Book of Buds: Marijuana Varieties from the World's Great Seed Breeders
Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower's Bible
Rainbow Vice: The Drugs and Sex Industries in the New South Africa
La cannabis. Proprietà, storia, impieghi, folklore
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society
BioSource Hemp 2000
Cannabis the wonder drug?
The Big Question: What is the truth about skunk, and have the dangers been overstated?
Encyclopedia of Clinical Toxicology
The Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids
Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market
- Really good sources that someone mentioned in the previous AfD on this article:([14] [15] [16] [17] [18]).

The topic is notable in hemp research, botany research and in cannabis drug culture. --Rigby27 (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 have counted the two keeps with less weight because we have never accepted things being named after people as notability, and there is no evidence that Brevard county was named after this Brevard. We certainly don't consider every public official as notable. N=V+RS+encyclopedic content.

Theodore Washington Brevard

Delete as per WP:BIO. His father may have sufficient notability to get an article on WP but he does not. Being the son of a famous father doesn't establish someone's notability (with some rare exception). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The George Washington Brevard article (that Niaz links to as the father) is misnamed; the text is about a Theodore. There appears to be confusion about the names. This site describes Theodore Sr. as "register of the land office at Tallahassee, Fla., and Comptroller of Public Accounts for the state of Florida". His son, Theodore Jr., was a Brig. General in the Confederate Army.[19]. It looks like Theodore Jr. had a son named George. The Brevards apparently are mentioned in LeRoy Collins's Forerunners Courageous. Unfortunately, the book doesn't have an index, so it will take me a little while to see if there is enough there to use as a reference. Both Theodore Sr. and Theodore Jr. might be notable enough for their own articles, but I would like to find better sources. -- Donald Albury 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furhter comment. The Collins book contains little beyond what I gave above, other than that Theodore Jr. served in the Florida Legislature. There was no George Brevard. I misread a chart; George Gwynn was Theodore Jr.'s son-in-law. Sources look to be pretty thin; the Brevards only made it into Collins's book because Collins's wife was the granddaughter of Theodore Jr. So, it remains the case that while Sr. and Jr. possibly both meet the notability criteria, reliable sources for anything more than sub-stubs may not be available. -- Donald Albury 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really appreciate your effort, specially finding references and details about those two articles from books and off-line materials. As Google is not helping out here and I don't have enough access to off-line materials right now, it would be really nice if you take an initiative to improve those two articles, at least up to a certain class that establishes their notability. I think still both the articles are extremely confusing and they require an immediate cleanup. In the meanwhile I'll try with Google and if I find myself lucky enough, will be back with some references. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I'm generally very "inclusionist" about historical figures and subjects, but the only off-line source I have at hand (the Collins book) is certainly not enough to hang an article on and, as you say, Google is no help. I do think the George Washington Brevard article has to go, as I see no evidence of a historical figure by that name. As for this article, I'll probably vote to delete if better sources aren't offered in the next day or so. If reliable sources supporting notability are found later, it can always be recreated. -- Donald Albury 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the namesake of Brevard County, Florida and a former statewide official. I do have reservations; State Comptroller was an appointed position under the Governor's office, which in 1998 was combined with the elected position of State Treasurer to create the Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida (what is it, a business now?). I think there's enough historical notability there, but just barely. Interesting that "George Washington Brevard" has spread (if we were the source) to reliable sources. It's also on other-language Wikipedias. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theodore as namesake and official--George doesn't seem to exist (unless maybe it was a nickname or something). I've added refs that I could find online--probably more are available offline. Shawis (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nobody has offered up any additional sourcing for this article, I'm coming down for deletion. We can't determine that someone is notable if there are no reliable sources to support notability. -- Donald Albury 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - keep for now and clean it up. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Julius Berlin

Delete as non-notable fictional character. It fails at WP:N and also to some extent at WP:V as it is really hard to find anything about this character from Google. At least I have completely failed. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in article, Google turns up pretty much nothing. Kalkin (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. And Google searches are not evidence of notability. This character will be familiar to the millions who watched the show at that time and coverage would be in newspapers of the day, of which Google knows nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable fictional Knight of the Realm Astrotrain (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhisamayalankara, Chapter One

I'm nominating this page and two others just like it. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content like this. The pages aren't very encyclopedic and don't really contain any information aside from what basically looks like chapter headers. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource if it would be useful over there otherwise delete. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, without redirection, to a subpage for User:Dawud for the time being. This appears to be a work in progress. Abhisamayalankara seems to be a religious scripture of some importance. Precedent suggests that at least some individual chapters or passages of religious works can support articles. This seems to be a work in progress that may not be ready for mainspace in its present form. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this information is respectively distributed to Wikipedia in a manner that reflects both zeal and aspiration for this book to be known, obviously deleting the information would be a barbaric course of action in consideration to the amount of time the user has contributed to this information, and it is regardlessly valuable content. In resolution to the present circumstances, I advise that these chapter articles are moved over to Wikibooks: this action will ensure that the information is respectively treated as a book--which it blatantly is--and allowed to survive, which will ultimately be the intention of its distributor, and thus a perfectly appropriate resolution to the situation. Deleting information at random will not look good for this relatively pathetic society, and therefore such actions should not be taken unless ultimately justified. User:Exiled Ambition 5 February 2008 (EST)
As I have stated in my previous comment, the most rational course of action in these circumstances is to create articles for these book chapters at Wikibooks.org. Merging vital information into one summarized whole is not appropriate to a valued piece of literature--nor should it be for any information--and therefore these chapters are not to ultimately be harmed by any means, but distributed at Wikibooks, its rightful place for future distribution. User:Exiled Ambition 6 February 2008 (EST)
It's me, Dawud--the main author of the Abhisamayalankara chapter articles (so far). I'm part of a group which is studying this text over the next year and a half. We've just started this January. It's obviously very complex. For me, editing these things is a good way to make sure how much of it I understand. Anyway, I hope you can give me some more time to get them into shape. It takes time to figure out what each of the seventy topics actually means (the amount of Buddhist jargon is intimidating even to dharma students), look up all the terms in Sanskrit and Tibetan, and so on. If the basic objection is that all of these ought to be subsumed under the main Abhisamayalankara article, I suggest that this approach would make the main article unwieldy. Bear in mind that the chapter articles will likely only be seen by people proceding from the main article, who are somehow motivated to know more about this convoluted but important text.Dawud (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't the place to post all of your research. Each chapter should only have a page if there's so much information that it needs to be separated from the main page. Don't post the translations; rather, provide decent summaries of the sections, and more importantly, use secondary sources to back up your claims. I see no information in any of the three chapters that shouldn't exist solely on the main page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't research, and these are only the titles of the subheadings. There would have been more information if I hadn't had to fight off you guys the day after I started putting this together. This was just the framework. Dawud (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's going on with this? When will the issue be decided, and on what basis? (Voting on this page?) I suggest postponing the whole discussion for a month, giving me a chance to fill these in.

HelloAnyong asked about sources. These are listed in the main Abhisamayalankara article, which I hope everyone is aware of. One of them (Conze) links to a translation of the text itself, in case anyone wants to see what we're dealing with here.

Remember that this text is one of about a dozen (for the Gelugpas, one of five) of the most important philosophical / doctrinal writings studied by Tibetan lamas. I would compare it to Kant's writings in terms of both difficulty and influence.Dawud (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've responded to Dawud's question on his talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to HelloAnnyong, this was to have been decided by an administrator within several days. Now that several days have gone by, is there any sign of this happening? I am eager to know whether to work on these any further. Dawud (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As of Valentines Day (2008), I have found the Tibetan names for everything (from Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary) and am waiting for the Sanskrit. In other words, the names of each topic and subtopic will be in Sanskrit and Tibetan, followed by all the published translations. (I am also waiting for those of Brunholz and Sparham.) Then--soon, I promise--there will be descriptions or elaborations based on these various published works, including further subdivisions as well as links to the Prajnaparamitasutras on which the text ostensibly comments. At that point I think everyone will agree that the articles are admissible. 218.167.162.98 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - while the main work is certainly notable, I can't see the notability for individual chapters. - fchd (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did this mainly to keep the main article short. Isn't that the done thing? Are you asking for less information / detail? (In which case we should reset the main Wikipedia page to rank each Wikipedia language according to how small they have succeeded in editing themselves down to!) Or just one verrrryyyyy long main article? 218.167.170.189 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I did this mainly to keep the main article short. Isn't that the done thing?" Nah. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Article size: "One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." 218.167.172.98 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HBCLIVE.PRINT

Appears to be an insufficiently notable music publication. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over when it becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insta-Check

Dubious page, tagged as needing cites since June 2007, appearing to be a vanity page, orphaned with no links back to it. Yaf (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yaf (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. BusterD (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Scroll and Key

All the sources cited, and indeed anything I can find are directly tied to the school. No evidence of notability or coverage by independent sources. Travellingcari (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Text of article does not match references, appears to be minor college award, not "secret society" (confused with Yale group?) Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable campus organization/award, or whatever it is. Jfire (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that all of the band's albums are up for deletion, here & here, and there's been minimal input, the best thing to do is combine the information into the main article, Pork Dukes. — Scientizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the Filth!

non-notable release, 391 hits in Google Rapido (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:A. Rapido (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I googled for "All the filth!" CD and got 5,600 hits. Either way, low g-hits may only indicate that it's a niche market item, which seems to be the case here. My understanding is that the group was a medium-level part of the first Brit punk invasion and that this compilation is significant for being a reasonable retrospective of their contribution to the genre. Yeah, I'm an inclusionist. Matt Deres (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My original statistic is for "All the filth!" "the Pork Dukes"; as it's unlikely that the artist would not be referenced in the same page as a mention of the record. Most other pages are presumably where the words "all the filth" appear in a sentence. Not sure how just because an artist is notable, that all their artwork can be considered notable by default. The Pork Dukes themselves seem only on the threshold of notability (personally I have been involved in the British music scene myself and had never heard of them before reading their entry, they seem more of a local band). Rapido (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the band seems to be well-established, despite your never hearing about them before, and therefore so too are their official releases. This disc in particular seems to be a notable release from this group. Jlivy (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)— Jlivy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scientizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeal Meat Again!

extremely non-notable rel., 36 Google hits Rapido (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nichols (folk/world)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joe Nichols (folk/world)

Asserts notability by saying he's known for his style; however, a search for sources turned up only information on the country music artist of the same name. Also asserts notability by two labels on Syphrus Music; however, a serach for sources on that label turned up nothing of note.

Also listing for deletion the supposedly non-notable label:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already had this discussion with YoungAmerican. These pages have existed for years and were accepted up until recently. YoungAmerican had recently deleted the artists from the label but said that the label was notable. Joe Nichols released two albums on the label, meeting critieria for musicians and ensembles:

YoungAmerican deleted all artists affiliated with the Syphrus Music label, saying that "label notable, but all bands flunk A7". Joe Nichols has released two albums on that label. If the label is notable, then that artist meets the criteria:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Responses from YoungAmerican were: The label can be mildly notable without the artists being noteworthy. I'm thinking that the label passes WP:CORP

So the label has existed for more than a few years, and has a roster of performers and releases. Only one of these performers has released two albums, but the total output of the label is significantly higher. Regardless of the notability of the artists who have only released one album, other editors have stated that the label is "mildy notable" and meets WP:CORP. Additionally, there are long-time labels on Wikipedia who have done less and have not been subject to deletion.

Kevingarrity (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence, however, that the label does pass WP:CORP, however; a Google search turned up nothing at all except for MySpace and Wikipedia mirrors. The number of releases isn't very relevant if no other sources can be found to verify that the label even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the label's own website should indicate that the label exists. Additionally, the label had previously been known as Syphrus Recordings and a search for that term turns up different results. When the individual artists from this label were still included on Wikipedia, there were links to albums that had been physically released by the label. WP:CORP states that notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Criteria of WP:CORP also states that "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject."

A search for the label and its releases turned up the following article from Blabbermouth.net (one of the top metal music news sites online) http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76112

Kevingarrity (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Syphrus Recordings" didn't turn up any reliable hits for me either -- again, just MySpace and Wiki mirrors, or one sentence mentions at the most -- and just a one sentence ref does not warrant substantial coverage. I am quite familiar with WP:N, WP:CORP, etc., so you don't need to quote me whole passages. The source you cited is a two paragraph press release, which also does not warrant substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source I sited was an article published by an international news source. It does not appear to be a press release. I also don't understand how these articles were acceptable until recently. Have there only recently been changes in Wiki policy? The criteria WP:CORP is not "substantial" coverage - merely "coverage in secondary source". Brief mentions on a variety of websites or an article on an international news site may not be substantial, but they are in fact secondary sources which is the minimum criteria. Additionally, MySpace pages not maintained by the subject are secondary sources. We could also include sites that sell the albums in question as proof that they exist, but I was under the impression that it was not policy to link to vendor sites. I am also researching offline sources since Wikipedia allows for such sources.

Kevingarrity (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were "okay until recently" because nobody else thought them to fail WP:MUSIC. Also, MySpace is not a RELIABLE source (see WP:RS), nor are sites that sell the albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does your opinion outweigh others? Additionally, the criteria in question seems to be WP:CORP not WP:MUSIC. The criteria for this is coverage (not substantial coverage) from a secondary source. By the way, regarding MySpace and vendor cites - this is why I did not cite those sources, but you seemed to question whether these albums actually existed and a site that sells it would prove that.Kevingarrity (talk)

Delete. Nothing on AllMusic for either Nichols or Syphrus. The only references provided are to a local weekly paper. Notability seems WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the musician. Perhaps my speedy deletion of this article was hasty, but I still contend that this particular musician flunks inlusion guidelines, per various points made by TenPoundHammer during this discussion. Weak keep for the label. It seems to stick a toe across the line of WP:CORP, but it sure could use some more high-quality sources to make that case. y'amer'can (wtf?) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and few-to-no reliable independent news sources. The label is also of questionable notability.BWH76 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Cheater's Karma

Delete album track for forthcoming album, unsourced as usual, lacks notability, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely WP:CRYSTAL at this point, no need to even merge. Wait until the song's actually charting before making a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL Francium12 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CRYSTAL. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Shaw

Unlikely to meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. May not meet our standards, but could easily be transwiki'd to a more appropriate wiki under the GFDL. Solumeiras (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heart 106 or another appropriate page. Probably well known in the East Midlands region, but not outside of that (although I seem to recall her at Heart FM in Birmingham). There are lots of these DJ articles, and I would personally be in favour of merging many of them into something like List of British DJs. Paul20070 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. All these British DJs could appropriately be listed there. 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a stub. It needs development, not deletion. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it should not be deleted. 'cuz she does exist, the article can be expanded yet. And if we change this article to Redirect and she changes her job, what should we do? her information will be gone forever, though she is a notable person. It's not what we want. --Carl Daniels (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scientizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kum Kleen!

nn., "the Pork Dukes" "Kum Kleen!" 142 hits Rapido (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence that this term is used in reliable sources. Core desat 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

AfDs for this article:

Article was deleted as recreation of deleted content, but this was overturned on DRV because drafts were significantly different. Problems with original research and insufficient referencing were sufficient to renominate at AfD, however. This is a procedural nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dieselpunk is a young, yet notable genre, originally coined by the designers of a dieselpunk game [20]. An extended chronology exists for dieselpunk works of fiction[21] which is no less arbitrary than a similar list of steampunk fiction. Ottens (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to this well-written article, but I can't see how the article (in its current form) meets notability standards - do you know of any mention of the term in reliable sources such as magazines, journals, books etc? Even a dictionary inclusion or a mention in the blog of a notable author would help. скоморохъ 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that the notability of some of the following references may be questioned, but I mean to illustrate that dieselpunk and discussion about it is relatively widespread in answer to Mr Skomorokh's inquiry.

Children of the Sun-related :
- "Press relase from Misguided Games inc.", MisguidedGames.com (2002-06-07)
- Bruno, Mark. "Interview: Misguided Games’ Lewis Pollak, on Children", GamingReport.com (November 19, 2001)
Dictionary entries :
- Dieselpunk at Wordie
- Dieselpunk at Wiktionary (added 2004)
- Dieselpunk at AllWords.com
Articles about dieselpunk on websites and blogs :
- Dieselpunk at Carnegear (February 17, 2007) (Finnish)
- Dieselpunk at The Gatehouse (2008)
- Dieselpunk Chronology at Retrostacja (since 2007)
- Вихри дизельпанка ("Winds of dieselpunk") at MIRF (Russian)
Discussions about dieselpunk :
- Wacky New Idea: DieselPunk! at RPGnet Forums (01-27-2002)
- Steampunk - Alternate Variations Thereof at The Steampunk Forum (January 25, 2008)
- Dieselpunk vs. Pulp at The Steampunk Forum (March 9, 2007)
Other :
- The work of comic writer Krzysztof Janicz is considered dieselpunk[22]

Ottens (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ever so much for your diligence. It does seem that the term is valid, widely used and demarcates a real genre of fiction. None of these sources confer notability according to Wikipedia's policy, alas. I think this will have to be merged to Literary punk genres if it is to be included at all. скоморохъ 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must regretably agree with скоморохъ here. Despite several days of searching, I can find no sources that would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The term is simply too new to have been used widely in sci-fi circles. A merge to Literary punk genres seems the best option. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a huge fan of the -punk genres, but, sadly, this one just isn't notable. There is possibly one reliable third party source in the list above. I think that it deserves a mention on steampunk, (as a sub-genre) along with another mention on the Children of the Sun page, and perhaps a mention on any writer/artist/musician described as 'dieselpunk'. The page itself should probably redirect to steampunk. However, there just aren't the sources to have an article on the genre itself, yet. Hopefully some day. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, NN. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no reliable sources, still not enough stories to constitute a genre unto itself. What I find odd in this conversation and the previous discussion on the article's talk page is that there is little to no mention of what authors are working in this genre, but rather a desperate attempt to prove the term itself is notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possible conflict of interest After examining some of the sources on the above list, it seems likely that that Ottens created the entries at "the Gatehouse" fairly recently, possibly to help influence the outcome of this debate. I would add that the bulk of these sites and lists are not from reliable sources and are as full of holes and contradictions as the article under debate here.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure I am the one who PRODed this article.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really like the steampunk genre, but I agree with the nomination that this appears to be original research. I also agree that this the links listed above are not reliable sources. Slavlin (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the punk fiction article at Literary punk genres 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Henry Merrivale (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I most definitely did not wrote the articles at my own website in order to save the entry here from deletion. I had anticipated that the Dieselpunk page at wikipedia would be removed, thus I wrote the articles 1) so there would still be a source online for information about the genre, and 2) because the wikipedia entry, which I also wrote, included stuff I wanted to include in the articles for my site. May I suggest that you be slightly less suspicious of my motivations in the future, Mr Beeblbrox?

Mr Slavlin, may I refer you to the line I wrote above the list of links provided? "I am quite aware that the notability of some of the following references may be questioned, but I mean to illustrate that dieselpunk and discussion about it is relatively widespread". They weren't all meant to be reliable sources; I provided the list to show that Dieselpunk is a known genre about which awareness is steadily growing.

Unfortunately it appears that wikipedia will not accept it until some more game designers, film makers and authors declare their own work "dieselpunk". It reminds me of the status of "steampunk" several years ago, before it was accepted. Hopefully we'll be having this discussion again some years from now when more works of fiction are labeled "dieselpunk". Ottens (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to lose the focus of our debate here, but to be fair, I was careful to use language like "probable" and "possibly". I think it is highly dubious, no matter what your motivations may have been, to create a website yourself and then cite it as a source for an encyclopedia. I also find some of the claims made on the cites you reference extremely unlikely. Where are the "punk" elements of Raiders of the Lost Ark and how could it be considered the same genre as Dark City or Brazil? These are the questions I think most people would have upon reading this material, and nothing in this article or in the sources you've provided seems to have the answers.Beeblbrox (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to cite my own website as a source for the article--I included it under "External links", for it is one of the few resources for information about Dieselpunk, but I did not list it as a source for information about the genre. I listed it here merely for purposes of proving notability. If this caused any confusion, I apologize for that. I do not consider my own website a source to proof legitimacy of the genre. Ottens (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article needs some work, but it's notable. Battle Angel Alita seems to fit into the Diesel Punk genre. Malamockq (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 100.7 Heart FM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Williams (DJ)

Does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. This article should really be transwiki'd per GFDL to a more appropriate wiki. Solumeiras (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM or another appropriate page. There are lots of these DJ articles, and I would personally be in favour of merging many of them into something like List of British DJs. Paul20070 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 100.7 Heart FM and The Arrow. Article contains no biographical info on otherwise non-notable subject other than current airshifts at these two stations. - Dravecky (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 100.7 Heart FM per above. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his radio station as linked above. There's nothing at the current article which warrants its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudz679 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 100.7 Heart FM. Black Kite 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Jamison

No assertion of notability is made, and she probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, even if her employer is notable. As per Kim Shaw and Dave Clarke (DJ), this has been listed at VfD. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM or a similar page. There are lots of these DJ articles, and I would personally be in favour of merging many of them into something like List of British DJs. Paul20070 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. Alone, it falls short of WP:BIO and there are no supporting references.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a stub. Needs development not deletion. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no verifiable information. Can be recreated if/when reliable sources available. Black Kite 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 26 (N.Z. series)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music 26 (N.Z. series)

No content, no references, WP:FUTURE. fschoenm (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep - Just because the release date is in the future doesn't make it WP:CRYSTAL. If there's a source confirming the release date, this can be kept. We even have a tag for that: {{future-album}}. Torc2 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no verifiable info for notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - since this is getting so little attention, let me add that my vote was based on the condition that a source was added that confirms the album's existence. If no such source is added, the closing admin may consider my opinion weak delete. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adath Jeshurun Congregation

Delete Non-notable congregation without any references to establish notability. Bstone (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Keep. Until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is reached about what to do about such articles and stubs. Nominator has recently nominated a number of synagogue articles and stubs for deletion causing concern. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry, but I did a few searches and did not find anything that would assert any notability of this synagogue. The article itself provides very little context. Unless independant, third party sources can be found to indicate some sort of notability, I don't believe this article meets our guidelines for inclusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rjd: I got all my information only via Googling by first doing the search without inverted commas and hence found hundreds of hits and results for Adath Jeshurun Congregation Minnetonka it's just that sorting it manually is harder, but it can be done and it yields good information. Also, to repeat, AFDs and prods should NOT be used as "scare tactics" to get people to improve articles "or else" -- that is a kind of a "law of the jungle" trap that as responsible and honest academic and intellectual editors we should not just avoid but also shun. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) What is the basis for claiming this congregation is notable? (2) What are the sources to support it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shira, I researched the topic for a couple of hours using Google, as anyone can, and I also found some excellent sources now cited in the article. IZAK (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Per IZAK. Nsaum75 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really don't get IZAK's argument. Consensus on deletions is made here. If there's a consensus it will be deleted, it there's not it won't. Jewish articles don't get special treatment. What is "causing concern" supposed to mean? On the merits here, the article doesn't contain even an assertion of notability and had this been a church, mosque, tennis club, or company, it would have been speedied by now. If someone can show some significance, then fair enough.--Doc^g 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc: The article is now significantly expanded with more information and sources. IZAK (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just piling on, can you please explain why IZAK's opinion makes sense, since it seems to me to be in conflict with policy. And then can you explain why this article meets our inclusion criteria, since IZAK has offered no rationale. If we are trying to discuss this article here to reach a consensus, "votes" that effectively say there should not be a discussion here but only on some individual wikiproject, may well be ignored by the closing admin. Wikiprojects do not own articles. I'm willing to change my delete opinion, in response to good arguments, if people will have the courtesy to enter into the discussion.--Doc^g 11:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc: Had you been following the discussions about this over-all subject of deleting synagogue articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles you would have an inkling of my serious concerns. Allow me to repost my most recent explantion of why we are having problems here: "...you have not grasped where I am coming from in the present situation it seems, because my concern and focus is on BUILDING Wikipedia especially its Jewish content. In the process of building one needs "bricks" and "cement" at least. Some of the recent nominations to delete articles about synagogues run counter to the spirit and aim of building good articles. Many of these synagogue articles have been accumulated over years and they need to be looked at NOT as "nuisances" that need to be removed but as POSSIBLE building blocks, either on their own if at all possible, or as the parts of articles about the cities and communities they are in. Thus an article about a small synagogue in an isolated community may not seem that significant on its own, but it can and should be part of a larger article about [[History of the Jews in _ _ _ _]] see Category:Jewish American history by place as an example, or it could even be MERGED into an general non-Judaic article about the city or community it finds itself in under a sub-heading of "==Religion in _ _ _ _=="! These are all healthy possible options to have in mind and but not to be "trigger happy" by reaching for the "delete" options at every turn without considering the larger picture and the difficulty of gathering information for Judaic articles in the first place! These are some of my concerns as a Wikipedia writer/editor/contributor (who by the way also knows that at times some articles must indeed go, but it must be built on perspective and not just "fulfiling rules" that are a dime a dozen and don't help writing/editing/contributing in any real way.) As for what large company's and organizations are doing it mostly does not impact Wikipedia's Judaic content, except I would say with articles relating to Chabad that are flooding-in in greater numbers and need to be controlled and channelled. But this needs to be a careful busines and not a "shoot at sight" situation where an editor can look for all the rules around and shoot down stubs especially, something that is very unfair to all stubs. The mere fact that Wikipedia allows for stub articles to exist without any timeframe imposed on them, disproves the desire of the blanket deletionists. Not every article can reach full bloom with the slapping down of a template for "more information" and the like. Growth takes time. We are writers and editors first and being "deletionists and butchers" needs to be seen in context of growth and not just a process to fulfil rules that have nothing to do with writing and creating larger and better articles." IZAK (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable synagogues do not meet the criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that it is truly and absolutely a "non-notable" synagogue? What about WP:BITE? IZAK (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Brew, take another look, now it does!IZAK (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Izak: You did an admirable job on the article. "Oldest Conservative Synagouge west of Chicago" removes my !Delete, but I'm unsure if that by itself makes it notable (besides the fact that it doesn't come from a reliabe source). The rest of the article, although informative, doesn't really make a notability claim.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brew thank you for the compliments. What exactly would you like to write about any synagogue, or are synagogues not notable in your eyes? You seem to be in a hurry to push out the mention of synagogues. They are at least as important to modern Jews today as are video games are to the world's kids and there are thousands of stubs at Category:Video game stubs and no-one is running around screaming that they should be slashed like heck or be pushed into larger games or video articles such as Electronic games of children or Playing machines for entertainment. Similarly, Muslims have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Mosques and Christians have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Churches and there are lots more in similar ones like Category:Religious places, Category:Religious buildings, Category:Religious sanctuaries and more (all with lots of stubs in them) -- thousands of articles and stubs in all -- unless you are planning on blitzing all of those and sanitizing Wikipedia from religion entirely. Let us know what your plans are, it should make for some good discussion with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and the world will be most happy to learn in the media that Wikipedia has decided to destroy all articles that deal with religious places of worship and religious bodies! IZAK (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please stop yelling at me. Notability is notability is notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Brew, I am not yelling at you I merely highlighted the question and you have not answered me beyond saying "Notability is notability is notability" which is like saying "It makes sense because it makes sense" without giving a reason. Kindly explain what you would consider a "notable synagogue"? I am very curious to find out. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article, now renamed Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate it from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, is now a full article. It meets all criteria for such an article. It is requested that the nomination be withdrawn! Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article seems updated with claim of Notability of being the oldest conservative synagogue in its region and also professionally sourced. heartfelt thanks for whoever labored to save this article--YY (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YY. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded significantly and now establishes the notability of the synagogue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded to establish notability. Nsaum75 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this does it fact show specific notability as a particularly active major congregation. I cleaned up the sources to indicate that not all of them were self-published. IZAK asked me to look, and I think this is sufficient. Just sufficient, for there are some basic details missing: when was it founded, where exactly is it located, wheat buildings was it in before 1995? There should be at least an infobox for this sort of material. DGG (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malik. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as the oldest Conservative synagogue west of Chicago. --MPerel 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs: I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources used in this article are primarily self-published or otherwise not reliable. So it's the oldest Jewish place of worship west of Chicago? What makes that particularly significant? This fails notability guidelines (and a similar article on a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc place of worship would also). Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Karanacs: On what basis do you assert that "the sources used in this article are primarily self-published or otherwise not reliable" when six out of the eight sources have no connection to the synagogue? Your question that "So it's the oldest Jewish place of worship west of Chicago? What makes that particularly significant?" evokes some serious counter-questions that you must then face: What would make a synagogue "notable" to you? (and hopefully you are not opposed to all places of worship in principle.) Let's say a football team wins or loses some games and then that becomes the basis of an article, then one could easily state, well so what makes losing or winning a game so notable? And the answer would be that in the world of football and football players it's a notable event even though to the rest of the world they couldn't give a darn if they won or lost and it may as well be deleted with articles about all sports and players. I hope you get that your line of questioning is both unreasonable and not fair because each subject is judged for notability in its own field because there is no universal way to make all subjects equal because they all have different criteria and definitions of what makes them tick. Basically, notability is very relative. So your objections do not add up. Remember WP:NOT#PAPER -- until such time as the Wikimedia Foundation feels things need to be split up, like when they created Wiktionary for words crowding things up or pics, see Category:Wikimedia projects. But until such time we just keep adding and adding, welcome aboard the Wikipedia article creation and improvement express! Please try to remember that while some things do get deleted, it does not mean that everything gets deleted. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Websites of random organizations are self-published. Though they are independent of the subject of the article (and thus not published by the subject), that makes them no less self-published (no fact-checkers, no editorial control), etc, which makes it not meet reliability criteria. Anyone can get a website and put anything they want on it if they choose. Per the notability guidelines, an article is notable if it has multiple reliable independent sources. Picking an arbitrary point in a country and saying that something is the oldest <fill in the blank> west of that arbitrary point is not a reliable gauge of notability, especially when that same fact can't be sourced to an independent source.

I looked at some of the articles in the Churches category that you complained about above, and many of those stubs were for buildings that were National Historic Landmarks, which is a pretty good sign of notability. Those that don't have adequate claims of notability and for which reliable sources can't be found should be deleted. If the problem is that these places are not covered in reliable sources (which appears to be an issue here), then you would be better served trying to get news organizations or book publishers to write about those places - thus creating the independent, reliable sources necessary to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs: Thanks for responding. You make it sound that you are the only one who cares most about Wikipedia rules and standards when we all agree so please stop flogging a dead horse! You know, you also miss the point of WP:AGF in the sense that as intelligent editors we presumably all have brains in our heads and are endowed with good judgment especially the longer and more experienced the editor is, the more we can assume that an editor knows what they are doing, so that before we take out the knives to cut out articles, as smart editors and fair people we try to understand the topic not just from one view but from other/s points of view as well and see what's up and what they mean. Sure, here and there there are synagogues or churches or what-have-you that are not really notable, but that does not justify blanket antipathy and hostility to synagogue and church articles. Time and patience are just as important as Wikipedia rules, and in fact hopefully we are all good at being patient and having enough time to let articles develop. Personally I avoid creating stubs, but in my five years on Wikipedia I have seen lots of stubs sit around for years until an editor who cares enough will improve the topic. That is just life on Wikipedia. We must be very patient and mature with all of this because as the saying goes "haste makes waste" and no-one wants to guilty some day of having "thrown out the baby with the dirty bathwater"! IZAK (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting that, for example, the Jewish Theological Seminary is not a reliable source for Conservative Judaism matters? Are you suggesting it should be regarded as a "random organization" with respect to that subject? It's not an editor's personal belief about reliability that matters here, it's what the peer community says. My problem with the JTS article is that an article by the congregation's rabbi is evidence of the rabbi's notability within Conservative Judaism, not the congregation's, and I would note that some of the other sources cited really seem to be on other topics and seem to give the subject passing rather than substantial coverage. But this is quite different from a blanket claim that JTS is not a reliable source on Conservative Judaism matters or that religious sources are never reliable for establishing notability on religious matters. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth taking a look at the discussion taking place on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Mailing lists as sources where some senior core policy editors seem willing to take a very case-by-case approach in determining what sources are reliable in a field. Such discussions are common. Flexibility in application, such as field-specific considerations in determining source reliability, are part of Wikipedia's fabric. Such flexibility should not be confused with abandoning core policy requirements, like giving articles passes from having to establish notability. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I've added some detail from non-"self-published sources", which also attest to its notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A thorough, well-researched article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew. Chetblong^{T C} 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adas Israel Congregation

~~~~Delete~~ On hold~~ ~~~~Non-notable congregation, does not cite and references. Deletion is in order.~~ I am currently reviewing the article.~~ Bstone (talk) Bstone (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Per WP:HEY the article has now asserts and achieved notability. It's not perfect and needs a lot more work, but it is to the point that I hearby withdraw my nomination for deletion. Bstone (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Keep. Until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is reached about what to do about such articles and stubs. Nominator has recently nominated a number of synagogue articles and stubs for deletion causing concern. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry, but I did a few searches and did not find anything that would assert any notability of this synagogue. The article itself provides very little context. Unless independant, third party sources can be found to indicate some sort of notability, I don't believe this article meets our guidelines for inclusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rjd0060: I got all my information only via Googling by first doing the search without inverted commas and hence found hundreds of hits and results for Adas Israel Congregation Duluth it's just that sorting it manually is harder, but it can be done and it yields good information. Also, to repeat, AFDs and prods should NOT be used as "scare tactics" to get people to improve articles "or else" -- that is a kind of a "law of the jungle" trap that as responsible and honest academic and intellectual editors we should not just avoid but also shun. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) What is the basis for claiming this congregation is notable? (2) What are the sources to support it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shira, I researched the topic for a couple of hours using Google, as anyone can, and I also found some excellent sources now cited in the article. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per IZAK Nsaum75 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really don't get IZAK's argument. Consensus on deletions is made here. If there's a consensus it will be deleted, it there's not it won't. Jewish articles don't get special treatment. What is "causing concern" supposed to mean? On the merits here, the article doesn't contain even an assertion of notability and had this been a church, mosque, tennis club, or company, it would have been speedied by now. If someone can show some significance, then fair enough.--Doc^g 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Doc: Had you been following the discussions about this over-all subject of deleting synagogue articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles you would have an inkling of my serious concerns. Allow me to repost my most recent explantion of why we are having problems here: "...you have not grasped where I am coming from in the present situation it seems, because my concern and focus is on BUILDING Wikipedia especially its Jewish content. In the process of building one needs "bricks" and "cement" at least. Some of the recent nominations to delete articles about synagogues run counter to the spirit and aim of building good articles. Many of these synagogue articles have been accumulated over years and they need to be looked at NOT as "nuisances" that need to be removed but as POSSIBLE building blocks, either on their own if at all possible, or as the parts of articles about the cities and communities they are in. Thus an article about a small synagogue in an isolated community may not seem that significant on its own, but it can and should be part of a larger article about [[History of the Jews in _ _ _ _]] see Category:Jewish American history by place as an example, or it could even be MERGED into an general non-Judaic article about the city or community it finds itself in under a sub-heading of "==Religion in _ _ _ _=="! These are all healthy possible options to have in mind and but not to be "trigger happy" by reaching for the "delete" options at every turn without considering the larger picture and the difficulty of gathering information for Judaic articles in the first place! These are some of my concerns as a Wikipedia writer/editor/contributor (who by the way also knows that at times some articles must indeed go, but it must be built on perspective and not just "fulfiling rules" that are a dime a dozen and don't help writing/editing/contributing in any real way.) As for what large company's and organizations are doing it mostly does not impact Wikipedia's Judaic content, except I would say with articles relating to Chabad that are flooding-in in greater numbers and need to be controlled and channelled. But this needs to be a careful busines and not a "shoot at sight" situation where an editor can look for all the rules around and shoot down stubs especially, something that is very unfair to all stubs. The mere fact that Wikipedia allows for stub articles to exist without any timeframe imposed on them, disproves the desire of the blanket deletionists. Not every article can reach full bloom with the slapping down of a template for "more information" and the like. Growth takes time. We are writers and editors first and being "deletionists and butchers" needs to be seen in context of growth and not just a process to fulfil rules that have nothing to do with writing and creating larger and better articles." IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just piling on, can you please explain why IZAK's opinion makes sense, since it seems to me to be in conflict with policy. And then can you explain why this article meets our inclusion criteria, since IZAK has offered no rationale. If we are trying to discuss this article here to reach a consensus, "votes" that effectively say there should not be a discussion here but only on some individual wikiproject, may well be ignored by the closing admin. Wikiprojects do not own articles. I'm willing to change my delete opinion, in response to good arguments, if people will have the courtesy to enter into the discussion.--Doc^g 11:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly said, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles and my new comment above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable synagogues do not meet the criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How do you know that it is truly and absolutely "non-notable"? What about WP:BITE? IZAK (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article was created in May 2007. WP:BITE is about newcomers; and, plenty of newcomer's articles are of non-notable items that are deleted (sometimes even speedied). --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um MZM, writing an encyclopdia is not like making a cup of instant coffee. Many newbie editors are very nervous and tentavive and it may indeed take many long and slippery months to get proficient with everything we do here on Wikipedia. Also, most editors are very busy in real life, so they don't have time to fill out articles that takes hours of research, yet they may have good beginner topics for articles and we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles current content suggests a move to Jews and Judaism in Duluth, Minnesota. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brew: Not necessary, and no need to move to an empty red link at this time because now that the article has more complete content and citations. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think that Jews and Judaism in Duluth, Minnesota would be a more appropiate name for the article (with some trimming, like what time they daven mincha). Temple Israel (Duluth), which is an afd waiting to happen, can also be merged/redirected. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brew: Please do not trivialize or caricaturize this article. There is no trivial "time of mincha" information in it. What exactly would you like to write about any synagogue, or are synagogues not notable in your eyes? You seem to be in a hurry to push out the mention of synagogues. They are at least as important to modern Jews today as are video games are to the world's kids and there are thousands of stubs at Category:Video game stubs and no-one is running around screaming that they should be slashed like heck or be pushed into larger games or video articles such as Electronic games of children or Playing machines for entertainment. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) to differentiate it from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, is now a full article. It meets all criteria for such an article. It is requested that the nomination be withdrawn! Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even after the reworking of the article, I still see no real claim to notability other than "oldest surviving synagogue," which is ultimately a false claim. There also has to be an oldest gas station, oldest grocery store, and oldest tanning salon, but those wouldn't rate an article either. Pairadox (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, excuse me Paira: By comparing a synagogue to a gas station or grocery you show your utter contempt for Jews and Judaism for whom synagogue life and worship is a central part of their religious and cultural life. The existence of a synagogue in any community is a living testimony that there are motivated Jews and a vibrant Judaism in that place. You lack perspective and should apologize to members of the Jewish faith. Sadly, IZAK (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Muslims want to keep all images of Muhammad off of Wikipedia, but we don't craft our policies around that religion. This is no different. If anything, you owe me an apology for grossly misrepresenting my views and beliefs. Personally, I consider it a personal attack. Pairadox (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense! Do not throw in red herrings! This is most certainly not about Muhammad, or Moses or God. Muslims have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Mosques and Christians have lots of articles and stubs in Category:Churches and there are lots more in similar ones like Category:Religious places, Category:Religious buildings, Category:Religious sanctuaries and more (all with lots of stubs in them) -- thousands of articles and stubs in all -- unless you are planning on blitzing all of those and sanitizing Wikipedia from religion entirely. Let us know what your plans are, it should make for some good discussion with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and the world will be most happy to learn in the media that Wikipedia has decided to destroy all articles that deal with religious places of worship and religious bodies! IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article seems updated with claim of Notability being the oldest synagogue in its neighborhood with professional sources. thanks for whoever labored to save it.--YY (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YY. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly this synagogue has multiple non-trivial reliable sources which is the main test of notability. I will also note that many synagogues have multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and just because these sources may be hard to find online does not mean that the don't exist. Jon513 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded significantly and now establishes the notability of the synagogue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded to firmly establish notability. Congregation seems to have a unique place within the greater community as well having some historical significance to the U.S. state of Minnesota. Nsaum75 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to be rather skeptical about local history, but I think this article is on balance sufficient. It can be justified by its historic role or by its current role. The first congregation of a denomination in an area is generally notable, and will be written about in the standard histories--the first school in a city would be notable too--and, in fact, it would be just the same about the first tavern or grocery store. (But this is not really the oldest Jewish synagogue in Duluth. It's the only surviving orthodox synagogue except for a newly established hasidic one; its historic nature is in having outlasted or incorporated all the other orthodox ones. Indeed, the article never even gives the exact year of founding.) One could also claim it as being important as the major or sole traditional synagogue. There are two problems here: how far one divides denominationally, and how far geographically. The Hasidic congregation is also theologically orthodox, though a different tradition; if there were a number of Hasidic sects represented, and also a traditionally ultra-orthodox but non-Hasidic synagogue as well as this modern orthodox one, would they all be significant? It is not clear what other synagogues here are; a reform one is mentioned because it shares the building, the name of the Hasidic one is not given except by implication in a footnote. There might for all we know be a conservative one as well. The general information about the historic Jewish community is background to an article of this title, filled out from what amount to primary sources. But it's not clear how large the Jewish community here is, or was in historic times--there are no figures given. Nor is there much in the way of relevant specifics--It does not matter where the family of one of the founders did in Russia. Impressive as it sounds, I am not sure this is the way to write such articles. Besides the date of founding, there are other missing specifics; we dont know the name of either the first or the present rabbi,, the location, size, and date of construction of the present building, or just what the activities are besides the traditional services: the key sentence "This building is the hub of the Jewish community, with religious, educational and cultural events taking place in the facility" refers ambiguousy to both the reform and the orthodox congregations collectively. DGG (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG: The issues you raise are valid, but they would best be discussed by the expert editors in each Wikiproject related to the religion in question. But editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not. See WP:RELIBODY. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please desist in the snide personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and ad hominem arguments. This is a neutral encyclopedia and we operate as a community regardless of ideology. I hope all voters leave their POV at the door when they engage here (although obviously you are unable to do that). Wikiprojects do not own articles. We don't ask the Pokemon wikiproject whether Pokemon articles should be kept, and the same goes here. In any case, Wikiprojects are not groups of editors who share a religion, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, anti-Zionists and Christians are all welcome to contribute to Wikiproject Judaism as they are to any other wikiproject. It seems to me that your case boils down to saying that normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish, well fortunately I know a number of Jewish editors who would disagree with that. You have added assertions of notability to the article, they are probably enough to justify keeping it, and that is quite enough.--Doc^g 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Why are you making the accusation that anyone is proposing that "normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish?" Where is your proof of these accusations? Culturalrevival (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - [23] - and the ridiculous suggestion that atheists should be disqualified from opining on deletion discussions about religious organisations.--Doc^g 11:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Umm Doc, you are over-reacting and I do not see anywhere that I said anything you allege or that "normal community processes do not apply to Jewish articles and that people who say otherwise are anti-Jewish" kindly let me speak for myself and please ONLY quote in full context what I actually said and not what you think I said or what your imagination is telling you I said. Let me speak for myself as I allow you to do for yourself. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, your comments to DGG are very troubling. It's implying that only a person of a certain religious faith can be any kind of authority on that faith. Perhaps you're very young, but that can be no further from the truth. There are experts on Christianity that are Jewish (see Hyam Maccoby for example) and experts on Judaism that are Christian (see John Strugnell). Religious faith does not prevent anyone from studying and being enlightened about religions that are not their own. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Oakshade's sentiments. I believe that IZAK's opinion is not entirely tenable here. Bstone (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade do not misquote me. If you have trouble with anything I said, please quote it in full context and I will either point out your misunderstnding or what it is that I stated. Thank you. Note to Bstone: I have no idea what you mean or what your intentions are by your statement. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nsaum75. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as the oldest Orthodox synagogue in northeast Minnesota, with history tied to Jews fleeing Eastern Europe in the 1800s. --MPerel 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs: I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources used appear to be self-published, except for the one source that says it is the oldest synagogue in Duluth. I wouldn't consider that enough to establish notability for a Christian or Muslim place of worship either. Do we really need or want articles on practically every place of worship in the world? Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Karanacs: You are not correct. Three of the sources are reliable published books and three cite records from the "Duluth Jewish Historical Society of the Upper Midwest" that leaves four links to sources connected with the synagogue, like the Minnesota Jewish Community Directory. So your objections do not add up. As for worrying about "Do we really need or want articles on practically every place of worship in the world?" My response is: Why not? If they are notable then we go for it because WP:NOT#PAPER -- until such time as the Wikimedia Foundation feels things need to be split up, like when they created Wiktionary for words crowding things up or pics, see Category:Wikimedia projects. But until such time we just keep adding and adding, welcome aboard the Wikipedia article creation and improvement express! Please try to remember that while some things do get deleted, it does not mean that everything gets deleted. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every house of worship needs an article on this project. Only the notable ones. This house of worship now barely eeks past the notable test. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Nsaum75. This synagogue appears to have played a historic role in the region and its significance is referenced. --Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Davis (audiobook narrator)

I cannot find any reliable sources about this person. I put it to AfD for consensus. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There is an assertion of notability, and a quick google search indicates that as an audiobook narrator, he is quite prolific. And if the accolades are true, I'd say he probably would pass the notability bar. Unfortunately, the article provides no real references. I've tagged the article as unreferenced. I'd give it a chance for improvement before deleting it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that proper reference added today. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they don't actually confirm much, and in particular, there is no mention of awards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient importance as a performer/narrator.DGG (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of London Borough Labour Parties

List of external links, ~~the parties are already in the list on Labour Party Members of Parliament in London~~ --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, linkfarm Travellingcari (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every London constituency has a Labour MP so Snigbrook's rationale is invalid. Furthermore, Labour Party Members of Parliament in London does not list parties, just constituencies. List of London Borough Labour Parties is not a really linkfarm as pages have no commercial purpose. It is what it says it is, just a list that enquirers may find useful. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. "It's useful" is not a valid argument for retention in Wikipedia. (And something need not have commercial purpose to be a linkfarm.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is not a useful navigational reference for the reader, so does not warrant a place in mainspace. If a wikiproject or an editor/ group of editors want this userfied or moved to project space, let me know. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of theatrical lighting control manufacturers

List of external links, most of these companies do not have articles --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, linkfarm Travellingcari (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it was, it was ugly and did not promote the creation of Articles. However, I have reformatted the 'list of' sections, to entice the creation of Articles of (quite possibly) notable companies. AFWIW, some of these companies do have articles, now we can tell which ones as they are not all masqurading as bluelinks. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could easily help generate new articles. Darkspots (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP is not the Yellow Pages. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A breakdown of the bluelinks in the article as it stands now: ADB is a disam page, Celco is a Chilean woodpulp company, Electronic Theatre Controls is grossly unreferenced, very spammy and probably wouldn't survive it's own AfD. Leprecon is a disamb page that says you've spelling Leprechaun wrong, among other things. Martin Entertainment and it's redirect (both listed) Martin Light have been notability tagged for over a month. Strand Lighting at least attempts to be an article, having a history section anyway. Freestyler redirects to Freestyle, a disamb page. Everything else is a redlink. Not hardly a solid argument for the need for this particular list, which, besidees the wonderful navigation that it is providing to nowhere, is just a list of external links and will likely only attract spam, not good articles. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not useful for navigation or likely article creation. --MCB (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12, copyvio) by TimVickers. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia the Band

questionable notability (aside from a known label, what is their notability?) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio from [24] DarkAudit (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 legal education. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law professor

Delete contested prod; this was prodded by one editor, prod was removed without edit summary by another - it has been copied to wiktionary and this is a classic WP:DICDEF, which is for our sister project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to legal education. Dictionary definition with no clear potential for expansion except by duplicating legal education or law school, but still a potential search term. EALacey (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is clearly a basis of an article here. Needs development. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Pure dictionary definition. There's nothing that can be said in this article that isn't elsewhere. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to legal education per EALacey. I do think the pagespace deserves an article, but this stub isn't the most likely path to get one. BusterD (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Walker (the Presenter)

Delete substub bio of a tv personality best known for being on a redlink show. Fails WP:BIO. So nn we don't know when or where she was born or anything else she did - seems like a bit part player. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, not eough context to be worth including. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important Comment - the show isn't actually redlinked, it was just a broken link. This is worth noting. matt91486 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB doesn't list anything she's done apart from the one show. The only hits in Google News Archive or NewsUK seem to be trivial mentions in relation to the show, a brief account of a blind date with Lord Brocket, and this, which reads like a press release or a summary of one. I can't find enough for an article. The article at Sarah Walker can include something like "For the presenter, see To Buy or Not to Buy." EALacey (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, although I admit this is a small consensus, the opinions here are valid and policy/guideline based. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects

No real claim of notability for this architecture practice - a car park and a footbridge do not count as "significant" unless proven otherwise. Unsourced peacockery which appears to be mostly advertising. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There do appear to be a few small articles about the bridge, it won a design award and it's mentioned in at least one book, [25] [26] [27] [28] so if anything perhaps an article should be created about that--but the firm itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to require an article.DanielEng (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small time stuff and no real cites. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clearly fails WP:BIO for athletes. Black Kite 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Van Buskirk

The the verifiability bit of the guidelines, which is a reason for nomination and this bio reads like a vanity article with a list of achievements as if it is a CV. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not establish any notability. The article is poorly sourced and the searches I've done yielded hit numbers similar to other collegiate athletes that do not warrant coverage in Wikipedia. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of similar athletes competing on the collegiate level - this does not mean that each should have a Wikipedia entry. BWH76 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mayors of major cities are frequently kept on Wikipedia; mayors of small towns usually are not. Despite the appearance of a 5-4 no-consensus, three of the four keep votes have to be discounted as anon IPs and likely puppets of the sock or meat flavours. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Heveran

Delete local politician mayor of the fine city of 9000 souls, but ultimately not notable. It may be time to set up a notability guideline for local politicians - yes, this isn't exactly the place to discuss that - because literally many will have mentions in the local rags that no doubt some would consider as meeting WP:BIO or WP:N rather than just demonstrating further WP:BIAS toward the US/UK who have lots of local rags and they all seem to be on the internet. Just a thought... In any event, this mayor is so nn, we don't know when or where she was born, her policies, party, whether she has any real power or is a first among equals type of mayor or even how long she has been or will be mayor. Alas, the things an inquiring mind would want to know from an encyclopedic biography.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below WP:BIO and my own generous standard permitting mayors of cities over 100,000 or so. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well SHE IS THE MAYOR and mayors are NOTABLE --69.86.172.50 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just make the article longer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapen (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is a mayor --71.250.8.236 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes claims of notability and should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - she's the mayor of what would be called a commune in France, or a village in New York. That's not enough for WP:N or WP:BIO specifically. Missing any good cites makes it fail for WP:BLP and could be speedied. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our current guidelines on notability of politicians found here. This particular mayor simply doesn't make it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Keeper76 and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. --MCB (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This article already exists properly elsewhere. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Double Miracle

Contested prod; prod notice was removed by anon IP editor without comment. No references at all. and nothing found on search engines that proves that this name has been applied to the play in question, or has achieved widespread usage. The play is adequately covered in the Super Bowl XLII article. Yes, it was a spectacular play, but this article by itself and under this title is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's fan commentary not an encyclopedic article. I recall a couple other articles about various names of this catch here in the last week or so. Didn't have them watched so I can't be certain where they landed. Travellingcari (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it was a notable event, which I can't see, this is WP:OR combined with WP:NEWS. Sorry, kid. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Durrant

Does not explain why this subject is notable Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claims of notability are evident: "toured as part of the band Sky and with Herbie Flowers", "performed as a soloist throughout Europe", "Daily Mail Golden Jubilee Award". Sure, it's got NPOV issues, but he certainly meets the notability bar, and his website provides plenty of possible sources. Jfire (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originated this article. I consider that the subject is notable, even if the content isn't great. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:MUSIC - national tours and awards, etc. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle (North Central College)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a student newspaper; newspapers are not inherently notable, student ones too, and there's nothing to indicate that this paper has won any meaningful awards or uncovered any great stories or is any different than the papers published at thousands of other colleges. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, however there apparently is precedent for keeping them per this recent AfD because they're the official record. Personally I see nothing encyclopedic about the content of either article, nor an indication of notability but that's not the case apparently. Travellingcari (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North Central College. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elkman. Presumably a notable aspect of North Central College culture, and whether it has any independent notability can be considered when and if somebody writes enough to split back into a separate article. EALacey (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lado

Non-notable third party presidential candidate. Zero hits in google news. Endorsed by the "The New American Liberty League", but no evidence that organization is notable either. Jfire (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. No credible sources, pure spam.--JayJasper (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he gets elected, then okay, but... --Calton | Talk 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Concrete

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After another editor removed the AfD tag (I've restored it), I went back to find my earlier source saying it was never released. I didn't find it. I did find the source this article is a copyright violation of. It says, in part, "A.D.O.R. was supposed to back up those successes with the completed full-length The Concrete; unfortunately, adversity soon struck. His production and management deals collapsed, and Atlantic decided to shelve the record." As I proded the article and AfDed it, both disputed, I don't think I should list it for a speedy. I will, however, correct the copyvio. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well it now has substantial coverage from reliable sourcesCosprings (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it has insubstantial coverage from non-reliable sources:

^ 1 Content: Gives a catalog number and release date (no other info), in apparent conflict with the same site used for cite #4.

^ 2 Coverage: Page not found

^ 3 Coverage: Atlantic shelved the album in 1995. Reliability: Very low. It's a blog reveiwing a later compliation by the artist.

^ 4 Content: "Atlantic decided to shelve the record." because production and management deals fell through. Reliability: Fairly high; allmusic.com is usually very reliable for hard data. Then again, it contradicts itself (see #1).

^ 5 (Repeat of #4.)

^ 6 Content: The album "was never given an official release", reads like a recap of #3. Reliability: Low. It's an on-line record store's album review of a later compliation by the artist.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are blogs, rapreviews and thesituation are well known commercial sites. We do agree it was never released, but it does have substantial coverage. I fixed the page not foundCosprings (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was never actually released, so it's probably not notable. Was there some controversy about it that make it notable? Bearian (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable dead project; could be mentioned briefly in the performer article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as NN, and no way to verify its importance; currently Spanish WP is no help. Allow for its re-creation when reliable sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accion Por La Justicia AXJ

Delete nn political party, there are a few hundred registered political parties in Spain and this one seems to exist more in cyberspace than in reality and hasn't won any seats apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More systemic bias from wikipedia. Minor English and American parties pass the notability threshold.

If anyone knows Spanish they could expand the article by expanding from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acci%C3%B3n_por_la_Justicia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to verify anything but the bare existance. Spanish Wikipedia has no sources beyond the registration either. Fram (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal AMP - Apache, MySQL and PHP

Delete no indication that this software is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything except the last sentence of this article is defining the term "AMP" (a variant on LAMP). Apparently there's just very little to say about this software bundle. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. "There's no there there." Bearian (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 song title back to artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run (Amy Macdonald song)

Delete no indication or sources showing that this song is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No context whatsoever. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Amy Macdonald The information on this page could go into the main article. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which of course defaults to keep. No prejudice against a relist sometime in the future. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Across the Eyes (film)

No film notability met (or asserted), possible vanity from single-purpose account. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film is noticable as it was released internationally, it is not an amateur film so therefore it is not a vanity page. OOODDD (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the awards & festival showings can be reliably sourced and/or better secondary coverage can be established. I found a little bit of practically-trivial coverage here, which can possibly be added to the sources. Reference 3 (this link) is currently broken...it's a blog on the AMC-TV site and there seems to be a problem w/ post permalinks, probably 'cause they didn't name them differently (see #2 here). The film festival at which the award was won is of dubious notability itself...The article also needs a cleanup (the plot section is currenlty an exact copy of its cited reference). — Scientizzle 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so many redlinks all in one place! No reliable independant sources to substantiate awards & festival showings, which is the sole assertion of notability. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is at least some evidence in the article already, and it appears there is more out there to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hate red links, too, but I can deal with this one. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Reuserfy. As of this discussion, the consensus is to delete this article based on the lack of independent, reliable sources, which means it is not verifiable. I agree that because this is a consumer product, because of its lengthy deletion history, and overall lack of sourcing, it is too easy for this to be perceived, in its current state, as advertising instead of encyclopedic. Because the creator has shown a willingness to take another stab at this, so be it. The article contents will be found for the time being at User:Ubzy/Voodoo Tiki Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Tiki

Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 (speedily, I think; it shows up in the WP:DRV logs, as a rejected candidate for restoration, but there is no pre-existing AfD log for an article by this name), with the warning that it must be fully sourced in a userspace draft before being restored. This has not been done; only very trivial facts have been sourced (I have {{facts}}-tagged the unsourced sections). Furthermore, the article does not establish notability (though it alleges notability enough, via discussion of breadth of distribution, to perhaps survive speedy deletion). As far as content goes (not to mention style, for which it has been cleanup-tagged) it is basically just an advertisement, going on at length about the qualities and elaborate production of the commodity with no material on critical reception, popularity or other metrics of a product's notability. Was also not at all written in anything approximating encyclopedic style, full of sentence fragments and rambling redundancies, but I've personally cleaned that up a lot myself just out of charity. I do not think it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about this company/product (whether it will prove to be notable or not), but this isn't it, and the (re-)creator was warned at DRV. I think this should be userspaced again for further development. The editor responsible for it appears to have made some effort to source it, but needs to read WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT more closely and try again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly and without prejudice. This is a consumer product; independent, third party references may be available for it. I set my mojo working on it, and found but one. But as such, there isn't enough in the article's text in chief, which suggests conflict of interest issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello,

I understand and please accept my apologies if this article is not acceptable for the Wikipedia.

You said " Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 "

I don't know what are you talking about, that page was protected, therefore I wasn't able to create nor modify anything. This was my first addition.

I just want to say that, from a human point of view, thisis what I have done:

I have saw that the article was protected, asked for unprotection. Someone told me: Create the article on your user talk page. And I did it. The article was rejected as an advert.

Then, I´ve enhanced the article with sources and cleaned up everything. See references from Ian Chadwick's Tequila website, in my article.

I´ve tried to contact the admin that locked the article long time ago -since I wasn´t the cause of the protection-. No reply. I´ve tried to unprotect it, explaining everything, and telling that the article is on my user talk page. (See history). The article was finally unprotected. I´ve though that the article was OK. Since I was asking constantly for corrections, before the article was, like you said, re-created. (But understand that this was the first time I've added my texts to Voodoo Tiki).

In short: As soon as an admin told me the article was OK, I've moved it to the Voodoo Tiki page.

That's all. All I ask is: assume good faith. I know the article is not perfect, is my first (important) one.

I do accept any corrrection you might have, please point me in the right direction. It is just a little bit frustrating to see my article accepted and a few hours later rejected.

I am not discussing your point of view at all, I am just trying to tell you that I don't want to create an advert. There's no need. I've wanted to see my first important article online, that's all.

Help me, please.

I will work -and learn- to add notability of a product. Ian Chawick is one of the best references in Tequila, I was trying to add his notes about the article...

Anyway... Do you want me to move it back to the user page again until this article is ready?

I might ask for help, in order to get the article in proper shape. What's the next step... I am so excited about my first article, and at the same time I'm a little bit frustrated. :Thanks for cleaning up the article and everything!

update:

There are many good articles about Voodoo Tiki on the Net, just like: Luxist

Should I add them to the main article? Thanks!

update: I am very concern about COI... Does it means that my account is going to be blocked because of this tequila article? I've tried to follow all the rules.

This brand is popular.

There are a lot of many less popular tequila articles on the Wikipedia online right now... Do whatever you have to do, but _please_ understand that I want to create a neutral article and I was following -trying- all the rules.

I've moved the article because it was approved by an administrator -since it was on my user page and an admin saw everything: my user talk page and my request for unprotection comments.

I was willing to receive suggestions in order to improve the article and to correct any possible flaw-. The admin gave me green light- when the article was unprotected.

Understand that I did everything right. I've created it on my user page, asked for approval, and an admin approved it.

I'm typing more here than in the article itself. Please assume good faith, and help me if you want. That is all I want... Thank you!

--Ubzy (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ubzy, this isn't about you. It's about the Voodoo Tiki article having been deleted before (evidently having been written by someone else), for the same problems still evident in this version of the article; it is nothing personal. It doesn't matter who wrote it; the point is that it is not an encyclopedia article yet. This is why the AfD nominations suggests sending it back to your userspace for additional work. No one is talking about deleting it off the system entirely, much less blocking you as a user. Don't panic. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What would be needed here is independent coverage by third parties who are considered reliable (and with a general preference for printed materials with a byline over websites or blogs). The statements in any article should correspond to what the independent, third party sources say. We generally don't rely on a company's own websites or publications, at least not to establish whether it deserves an article or not. Since they generate those materials themselves for promotional purposes, they make them say what they want to say; they aren't trustworthy enough for our purposes.
Moreover, articles about commercial businesses and products do get somewhat higher scrutiny. Wikipedia is a high visibility site. The temptation to use it for free advertising is strong. Our attempts to improve the credibility of information here mean that these things are going to face an uphill battle.
The article as it stands now is sourced entirely to Voodoo Tiki's own promotional website, and I fear that does not pass muster. Like I said, this is a consumer product. Independent coverage may well exist. I'd be happy to copy this article to a draft on your user page until such time as it can meet these tests. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you Smerdis of Tlon, I really appreciate your help I a do understand what you mean. I will make an effort to enhance the article, meanwhile feel free to copy this article to a draft on my user page until such time as it can meet these tests.

This will serve me as a good lesson, in order to create better articles in the near future.

I will add more third party -relevant- sources as I can, and I will follow SMcCandlish sugesstions too.

I receive a lot of benefits from the Wikipedia, and I will certainly try to expand it with as a way to say: Thank you!

Kindest Regards,

--Ubzy (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, vastly improved. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very spam-like, reads like a PR release by the company. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, possible original research, no verifiability. Houses of worship are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nendasji

Notability — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this is a sufficient rationale for deletion from the nominator. matt91486 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the nomination may be terse, I am inclined to agree. I came upon the article tagged for speedy deletion for criteria WP:CSD#A1, but was just able to figure out enough context for the article to survive. I then set about trying to locate additional sources and failed to come up with anything. I think AfD is the right process for this, since it gives time for sources in other languages or with other spellings to be produced to verify that this is, indeed, a notable temple. I'll be watching, of course, in case that happens. As it stands, this temple not only doesn't verify, but doesn't even seem to imply encyclopedic importance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, it's a very underdeveloped stub but I can't see why Wikipedia shouldn't have comprehensive information on temples (especially if it allows articles from Jimmy Wales on Mzoli's Meats). Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alan Fox

AfDs for this article:

Does not assert notability in any way Moosato Cowabata (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, previous AfD produced only a borderline publication record and no significant reliable sources that were independent of the subject. Jfire (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sources do not upport the article as to notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 24 published papers in Web of Science, with the most cited being 70, 49, 35, 17 times. A borderline record for a medical scientist. Major hospital. but only Associate professor at the relevant university medical school. I cannot tell the importance of the association. DGG (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC),

Keep Many publised papers in Web of science, that together with his record as a medical scientist and his record as an associate professor of a uni med school seems to seal the deal for me. Twenty Years 08:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Twenty Years 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. The article should be improved using those articles as sources. DigitalC (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Sahai suicide

This isn't a particularly special case and the person isn't otherwise notable. Fails WP:NOTE. The facts of the case don't warrant a special article. If it's a case of Ragging, it should merge into that article. Sadly, this young man became so distraught over being picked on at school that he decided to take his own life. Unfortunately, that story is not that uncommon, especially for young people under enormous stress in school. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails on notability grounds. - Longhair\^talk 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability. Also raises serious BLP issues. Simply listing names of people who were mentioned in a suicide note with no other evidence against? Not a good idea. I've taken the minimal step of removing the names. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a tragedy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a newspaper. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note - this individual is also listed, along with a small number of others, in List of people who have died because of ragging (which has also been nominated for deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article similar to this one exists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn-Marie_Wesley_suicide). The suicides of Amit Sahai and Dawn Marie Wesley are similar but it is interesting to see that the Amit Sahai article is up for deletion whereas the Dawn Marie Wesley article is still going strong.
- I'm not sure the Dawn-Marie Wesley example should be kept either but it has at least one major thing up on this one Rats & Bullies: The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story- a major documentary was made about it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also see WP:WAX, which effectively dismisses the reasoning for the keep above. Ros0709 (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planeguage

A description of videos shown on board Delta airlines doesn't - as far as I can see - satisy WP:N CultureDrone (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, unless multiple reliable sources can be found to establish notability (which couldn't possibly happen). --Russavia (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I looked for sources on Google and they all looked like blogs or self-published, none were reliable third-party coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it DOES satisfy WP:N because that is the core criterion of WP:N. Sources from MSNBC [29], and USA Today / Associated Press [30] are just a couple reliable independent sources about this topic that were found with only a few seconds of searching. --Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it technically passes WP:V and WP:RS, it's really marginally notable. One cited source pans and and one gives kudos. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consideration for others is something to be encouraged here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rewrite from sources. It does seem to be just barely notable, in a "new thing airlines trying" sort of way rather than being intrinsically important or well-done. I'd hate for our article to be nothing more than blow-by-blow summaries of all 25 PSAs, which it threatens to be. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Wexcan Talk 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computeach

Does not meet WP:ORG; no significant media coverage on google:computeach. Lea (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed 80.195.89.127 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has a bit of news coverage. [31] [32] [33]. There are quite a few articles about this company but not sure about reliability of sources or whether they're reprints of press releases.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All three are press releases though, not independent news, as far as I can see. -- Lea (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company non-notable except for their very aggressive online marketing (which is understandable, given their online platform.) However, I'd like to hear from page creator, and from ip user 85.189.69.9 who appears to have some affection this article (and almost exclusively this article). This all smells like very aggressive online marketing to me. IMHO, there isn't a single link associated with this article that couldn't have come from a marketing department. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone has added two links to press coverage, one with marginal[34], the other one with significant coverage[35]. I'm not convinced though that this is enough to establish notability. -- Lea (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the page originally because I've used them once and thought they deserved a mention. Other companies in their sector such as Learndirect have entries so it seemed only fair. They do have an aggressive TV advertising campaign and receive a lot of criticism online, therefore as people are talking about them they should have a Wikipedia entry. WhatDVD —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced leandirect warrants its own article either. It certainly doesn't assert notability at the moment. -- Lea (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I genuinely feel that companies such as Computeach and Learndirect warrant having Wikipedia entries because of the level of debate surrounding them online. Discussion is either biased for or against, therefore a neutral description on Wikipedia gives a balanced viewpoint for those wishing to research them before making career changing decisions. WhatDVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.69.9 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you point to established (online) news sources discussing this? -- Lea (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are plenty of reviews websites featuring negative and positive comments, but obviously by their very nature they are not balanced. Sites such as blagger and ciao have heated opinions. News sites such as the links on the Wikipedia page don't promote discussion, they're news sites rather than social interaction sites. There are also other news articles such as Times Online. WhatDVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.69.9 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not convinced, sorry. Blagger and Ciao only feature personal reviews, and Times only mentions it peripherically. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Lea (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes you are quite correct, Blagger and Ciao do feature personal reviews, it's for this reason I felt that a neutral Wikipedia entry would benefit people researching Computeach. Google's pages are filled with discussion about them and it's all biased one way or the other, either through aggressive criticism or through aggressive PR from Computeach. -- WhatDVD —Preceding comment was added at 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have more than trivial coverage by WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer file

WP:Dictionary entry. Lea (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless unsourced substub, unless expanded to show significance and independent notability, which is unlikely.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Installation (computer programs). A google search reveals plenty of hits, especially in relation to Unattended installation. Seems to be a standard name used by Microsoft. --Salix alba (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see right now why this particular technical trivium is interesting enough for the installation article, or at what point in the article it could be merged without breaking the flow, but feel free to try a merge. -- Lea (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The name is a plausible search term because it's used by Microsoft, but it's ONLY used by Microsoft and relates to their particular software installation architecture. Other environments use configuration files and such. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unit test framework

Make this a redirect to unit test (rather than deleting).

Rationale: Essay/howto-style article, unreferenced, thematic duplicate of unit test (anything encyclopedic that could be added to this article should rather be added to unit test). Lea (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article as it stands is poor, this seems a reasonable topic for an article. Unit test frameworks are really as much about regression testing as unit testing, so redirecting to unit test would probably not be appropriate. Some of the information on this topic is already here in articles such xUnit and Test-driven development. I would like to see a better article here rather than this just changed to a redirect.--Michig (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're probably right that there could be something encyclopedic about unit test frameworks (general history, perhaps different approaches, etc.), but I can't see enough material off the top of my head to give it a try. The article would need a complete re-write in any case, so until someone's willing to do that, we may as well put a redirect. (If it gets redirected, we should probably place a note on Talk:unit testing that something could be written there.) -- Lea (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's problems with the current text seem spot-on. We do not need articles with elaborate quotations in source code.
Moreover, I would question whether we need quite so much granularity about the minutiae of software development or the problems of supervising software developers. That sort of thing seems to attract spam; be poorly written; full of vaguely abstract talk of "processes" and "systems". My general impression is that it constitutes a sort of tech-management-cruft. Notability is usually not an issue, since there probably is an extensive literature for any such subject you might name; readability, general interest, and sorting out legitimate topics from stealth spam are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Semi-off-topic comment: Unit testing comes from agile development, which tends to be rather non-crufty. Agree with your comment that I've seen a lot of tech-management-cruft, but I'm not competent enough on big-process management to propose any (new) notability guidelines there, or even have an idea where to draw the line.) -- Lea (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay/howto, adds nothing encyclopedic to our existing article on unit tests. I was hoping for an article-length expansion of unit test#Unit testing frameworks and would support the existence of such an article, but the present article doesn't help lead to that outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Unit testing for now. I agree with others that there is scope for a real article on the subject, but this is not a good place to start from. JUnit A Cook's Tour is a very nice article on the design of the junit framework. --Salix alba (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Unit test frameworks are not synonymous to nor a subset or example of unit test. Redirect would only serve to confuse dear reader. Let them google it and find actual information pertinent to the subject, not link some other article we happen to have that shares some of the page name words. Notability is not the concern here, it is the tone, style, and approach of this OR-POV/how-to. This article will be nothing once the inapproppriate stuff is removed, so delete without predudice against creation of a new article on the subject. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about redirecting to Unit_test#Unit_testing_frameworks though (make an anchor there perhaps)? -- Lea (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be somewhat like redirecting Screwdriver to Brakes#Adjustment. I say we should not make such a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the interests of closing this debate, let's delete it - there's nothing useful there and we can always create a better article later. Nobody seems to want to keep it, so do we really need more time spent on discussing this?--Michig (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a dump

First part is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Latter part is a massive, unsourced trivia section of casual uses of the term. Niether is IMHO particularly useful for the project. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a dump on this crap. Delete JuJube (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per JuJube (talk) . --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flush the crap as dicdef and trivia combined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:ILIKEIT which although an argument to avoid in AfD I choose not to this time, by WP:IAR. There is no rule against including a dicdef in an article, and there is no rule against including some trivia in an article. You can not extrapolate the inclusion criteria that clearly states that articles that are merely a dictionary definition are not allowed, and articles that are merely trivia are not allowed, to mean that articles that contain either or god forbid both must be deleted right away. This article is perhaps not written in the kind of prose that we want our better articles written in, but it does contain sufficient encyclopedic content to warrant exclusion from both the dicdef and triv arguments above. Combining the arguments together is a self-disproving argument, actually, because they both contain the word merely, which means "and nothing else but". I can see tagging this for sources, and asking the editors to refactor it into more prose and make it less list-y, but overall it is pretty good and I imagine it would fit nicely on the main page someday. ~~So again, KEEP.~~ JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if WP:ATA is necessarily a rule as per IAR. Nothing there says you can't use the argument, just that it won't hold much water, and I don't think this is an exception. I have nothing against issuing a WP:HEY challenge, indeed if someone wants to (ahem) polish this turd, be my guest. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think all it really needs is some good pictures. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You sir, win a redirect to 2 Girls 1 Cup... -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete per WP:2 girls 1 cup. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly being used as a dictionary definition followed by a list of trivia. Exactly what we're not looking for in an encyclopedia. RFerreira (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intended to be funny....I guess. Author has apparently researched every movie scene where a character has expressed a particular bodily need, and then limited it to those instances where the person announced that he was going to "take a dump". The description of the anatomical parts involved in the defecation process gave the article added sophistication. Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- down the S-bend with this one. - Longhair\^talk 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dump per the above arguments. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Well, I never knew of this usage, but in the IT (information technology) world 'to take a dump' is to make a copy of computer memory at at certain point in time and place the copy in a data set or print it for study. Taking a dump (dumping memory) is usually done when trying to solve a problem (often an abnormal processing condition) in a computer software program. I don't see any of this in the article. Where should it be? Hmains (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're thinking of Core dump -- RoninBK _{T C} 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Lever Lock

Notability not established; unreferenced since Nov. 2007; no significant secondary sources on google:5-lever-lock. Lea (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 lever locks are the standard secure locks in Britain. Googling '5 lever lock' I find 333,000 references. Nick mallory (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Google, you'd have to search for 5-lever-lock (1.3k hits) or "5 lever lock" (5k hits), which yield mostly store sites, not just 5 lever lock (2M hits, duh). Regarding notability, I'm not entirely convinced that being the standard secure lock in Britain makes it notable. Some independent source would definitely be good here. -- Lea (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. The standards are BS 3621:2007 and BS 8621:2007, which specify a lot of things, not solely five levers. Saying that the standard is a "5 lever lock" is a misnomer. There are 7-lever locks that are BS 3621 certified, for example. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should the article be moved to something more generic then ("lever lock" doesn't sound quite right to me)? *not-a-lock-expert-at-all* It does seem to contain valuable encyclopedic content. -- Lea (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
split/merge to Pin tumbler lock/Mortise lock as Jonathan says the current article is ambiguous, part of it refers to Chub which are a type of Pin tumbler lock and other refer to Mortise lock. The fact that there are 5 pins/leavers is not sufficient to define the lock. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge per the white willow's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is written as if people who know a lot about British standards (which are really BS) and locks are going to read it. It does not provide enough context in the lead paragraph to explain what it is talking about. It makes claims that a particular lock is the preeminent standard, and then says that it is only used in England and Scandinavia. It touts a specific brand. I think it should be deleted and the contents should be merged with the recycle bin of whomever deletes it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it touts a particular brand. "Chub" is a brand name used generically in the UK to refer to this kind of lock, as "Hoover" is used as a generic term for a vacuum-cleaner. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge per the white willow's reasoning. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N; needs cleaning, not deletion.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sallicio. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NKD

This band has apparently released one record in South Africa. The best coverage I could find is this, not enough to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Maybe there's more, but given the state of the article, is it really worth giving it the benefit of the doubt? Jfire (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it stands, the article fails to establish notability for this band per WP:MUSIC. It need a huge rewrite, but since it hasn't been touched since its creation, apart from maint tags and bots etc, I doubt this will get done. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google logo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Google logo

Insignificant. The page is a result of Wikipedia bias. If there is a page for this logo, why not a page for every other company logo? Plus, hundreds of websites have a history for their logos and change it for the holidays. LightSpeed3 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting (I thought so) and factual - and in terms of logo notability, if Google does not cut it, who does?. I see no reason not to have the history of the logos of notable companies, if they have some history behind them. These would be best put inside the company article, if there was room. But if the company article is already large (as Google's is) then a separate page seems the logical way to go.Jellogirl (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jellogirl's comment. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expected to find an article on it and was happy that I did. Other notable logos could have their article too, if there is enough interest in them Jagdfeld (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is better referenced than I expected. matt91486 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I think the content is notable, and should be kept. I'm still on the fence over whether it really needs its own article, as it could probably be merged into the History of Google article. I do recognize that there appears to be a lot of google-related articles right now that could very likely be merged and consolidated, but I wouldn't recommend mere deletion as the solution here. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the History of Google article is already a bit large, but you can count me neutral on a merge i.e. no objection.Jellogirl (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a subject that gets brought up again and again in logo design discussions. As for why not articles for other logos, if they can find enough reliable sources to prove notability, then sure. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The logo is notable enough to merit its own article. It has been referred to numerous times in the history of web design and the future of site aesthetics. –- kungming·2 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable enough, and I'm surprised we don't have similar articles available, such as one about the PBS logo. RFerreira (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its notable enough. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why not? I find it to be an informative and very interesting article (and what bias is there?). Besides, we could, and probably will, create articles on other logos if needed. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'm biased as a contributor. FYI check out "The Evolution of Tech Companies’ Logos". Oh Snap (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now part of popular culture. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though I am a contributor to this article, this has not influenced my decision for keeping the page. I think that instead of deletion that it should be merged with another article. Two of my preffered choices for merging are:
Google: the logo is in reference to the identity of Google
Logo: the image and identity of Google is known worldwide and is a perfect example of what a logo should be
Dankeschön
Mathieu Houz 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Sound Productions

No claim to notability or coverage in reliable third-party sources. A Google search yields 312 unpromising results. скоморохъ 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's spam. Created by User:Orleansd, who is Dave Orleans, who works for the company. Not that it's doing him much good, since the company website is a 404. Jfire (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Ioeth (non-admin closure).EJF (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jfire already put a speedy onto the page.--Pmedema (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Torso (band)

Article fails to establish notability for this band per WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no third-party sources either through Google News archives or by searching through a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. If no sources turn up, delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yams

Non notable band. Google searches yield nothing. Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable record label. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also noticed that this is a COI issue too. The creater of the page is User:Dave Yam. Undeath (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability as per WP:MUSIC Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assertions of notability are enough to stave off a speedyt deletion but we expect the subjects of bio articles to have multiple independent sources both to allow verification of information and to demonstrate notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Allen, P.Eng.

No evidence of notability and ghits are mainly naming him in his position. No evidence of the accolades claimed by article creator almost a year ago. Travellingcari (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the lede states the Notability, CEO and Registrar of Professional Engineers of Ontario. I havent a clue why it would be tagged for notability (x2). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written so it is hard to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights

Two names. Just not enough to sustain a "List" Vikrant 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much more to say about it...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
split or expand i would suggest moving the page to Necros and removing the lesser signifcant character. The information on Necros is valid enough as any other Bond character and that should not be deleted. I say move to Necros or expand the list and add missing henchman. What about the jailer at the Afghansitan Soviet base prison etc ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a sub-article of List of James Bond henchmen. There are 21 sub-articles in total, see Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen. --Pixelface (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not much of a list when it's all in-universe information. Looking at the other sub-articles for "Lists of James Bond henchmen", there seems to be overkill of in-universe information, not to mention excessively decorative use of non-free images. I suggest putting these up for deletion, too, and revising List of James Bond henchmen to have the actor, the role, and only a sentence or two about the role in the film. Scratch all infoboxes and non-free images and fancruft from minor henchmen -- they should be only entitled to individual character articles where the notability is clearly established, like Auric Goldfinger (though that particular article is in questionable shape). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disagree well I strongly disagree with Erik's sentiments here. There is nothing wrong in covering them in more detail, particularly for a genre as huge as James Bond but some of them need cleaning up. I think the infoboxes are tidy and useful. I see his point about too much in universe information though, but it should be possible to balance the info given if it is done properly rather than seeming to be fan based ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern is that it's all in-universe information. Wikipedia only favors in-universe information when there is real-world analysis available. I understand what you're trying to say about the scale of the franchise, but notability is inherited isn't the best argument. I'd support extensive coverage if there was more to say in the real world besides the actor and the role, but I doubt that this is true for all these henchmen. They're fictional characters that appear once and are not genuinely made famous outside of the context of the film itself, if they were even worth noting in that particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see what you mean. Some of the henchmen included only appeared for a minute or even less. I wouldn't have any objections to merging all the characters into the one list or even better why not e.g List of characters in Goldfinger, List of characters in the Living Daylights etc which could cover the major characters henchmen and allies and give it more of a chance to cover more information than just in unvierse. E.g on casting etc etc. Part of the James Bond theme though is the henchmen vs the allies though and I quite like this distinction that is organized at present. There should be enough info available though on lesser "notable" characters to include both aspects of knowledge ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral. Per assurances below, I'll AGF and let the appropriate WikiProject handle this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While acknowledgeing the "in-universe" concerns expressed above, I believe that there are sufficient sources on the various characters to produce out of universe information later. Such information should be added, as per the in-universe comments above, and if it proves that the individual characters listed are not particularly notable individually then perhaps their entries could be removed later, but I am certain that, with the huge number of sources on the Bond books and movies, there is content relating to the "out of universe" content on most of these characters. I do believe that the comparatively new Bond project will be working to provide such content in the near future, including me as I find time, and that we will remove or merge any entries which don't meet notablity requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed to neutral based on this assurance. I'm not a fan of articles with nothing but in-universe information, but the WikiProject's intended approach is probably more amicable than more WP:FICT saber-rattling. I hope that this topic and other henchmen-related topics can be reviewed and improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - Merge into list of henchman (like other franchises do), with out-of-universe commentary and such. Agree, notability isn't inherited by default, each article has to make its case. AfD is inappropriate IMHO, as the information is notable, but just not deserving of its own article. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There may only be two, but it would 1) ruin The Living Daylights page if merged. 2) Every James Bond film has an article in the List of James Bond henchmen in ... To delete it would break the cycle and guidelines set out (Unofficially) by WikiProject James Bond. 3) If we merge in to List of James Bond henchmen, we would start merging others, and suddenly have the problem we previously had with a very long messy article. 4) Some characters could be notable enough to have their own page, but they don't, so we can allow other minor characters get a mention. 5) These list of articles can be expanded, they just haven't had dedicated users yet. SpecialWindler talk 20:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand.--The Dominator (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent but would be desirable to see it expanded. JJL (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as preferable to articles on the individual ones. DGG (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpecialWindler, Dominik92 and JJL. Cliff smith (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per SpecialWindler. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other films' "henchmen in..." lists, but with strong recommendation to refactor as prose. I agree that merging the lists alone would be ugly and even worse. However, there is plenty of call for an article about the villains within the 007 franchise, as long as it is prose and is mainly real-world content about the creation and evolution of the Bond villains. I'd daresay such an article would have a far better shot at featured status, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misogamy

Transwikied dictionary definition with a previously contested PROD. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been deleted when transwikied.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be worth an article if there were a source saying this was a genuine psychological disorder, but I wasn't able to find any in a brief search, so it seems unlikely to ever be more than a dictionary definition. Chuck (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digini

Delete: Does not particularly assert notability. The only product advertised on the website is in beta. Most of the top Ghits are press releases or references to various development boards that the people there have posted sl. Article was created by User:Digini, so there's a WP:COI issue here too. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article: "Their flagship product, Blade3D is currently in development" in other words, it's a software company with no software yet. Looks to be a WP:COI issue too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cat

AfDs for this article:

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's needed as a dab page, and it's a good thing that it explains the origin of the term.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make it a disambiguation page per uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs. Jellogirl (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't dab. Works as a standalone entry, like everything else in Category:slang. Has had very significant coverage in reliable sources, ranging from incidental to direct. I've expanded it, and it has definite potential to become a decent article, if it isn't deleted first. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page, and move the dictionary definition over to Wikitionary w/ a linkback. RFerreira (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as speedy delete. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SogoTrade

[Non notable?] stockmarket firm, slightly spammy. Previously deleted as G11. Was prodded, but a prod cannot be used on something that was previously deleted, so I bring it here. I am neutral. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability; previously deleted as spam (content unknown). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content of the original was almost identical to this one to the word. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot-sheet

Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Travellingcari (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't see it getting expanded much beyond a dicdef.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. The question of whether or not to merge the content into another article can be handled through normal discussion. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPBX

Transwikied. PROD deleted. Recreated. (And I have restored the deleted history in line with the spirit of the contested PROD.) But still, just a dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me to be a bit more than a dicdef. Keep, but expand.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Important item of modern technology. Certainly notable. One could write yards and yards of valuable content. I'm not going to do it as I have neither the time nor the experience; but nor is anyone else if we delete the stub! Jellogirl (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there differences between IPBX and IP Phone; and also IP PBX, which currently redirects to Voice over Internet Protocol? Perhaps both of these terms (IPBX and IP PBX) should redirect to IP Phone. Calltech (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calltech. IPBX is a specific bit of equipment [36]. It's the IP equivalent of a telephone exchange. An IP phone is the equivalent of a telephone. VoIP is a protocol. They are three different things. IPBX and IP PBX (sometimes IP PABX) are used interchangeably. IP PBX should not redirect to VoIP IMHO, although arguably IPBX might be better renamed IP PBX. But which ever way we go, the equipment is notable and deserves a separate article.Jellogirl (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jellogirl. But this whole series of VoIP articles and associated equipment badly needs a remake. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's a kind of PBX. Merge it to that article. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic Second

Transwikied and PRODed as a dictionary definition. PROD contested saying it was not a dictinary article, but article contains nothing more than a definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can establish history of the practice (which seems doubtful, it's too obvious to have a clear history).--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. Jellogirl (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance anthem

The first part is barely more that a dictionary definition, and has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The latter, list part, is all totally unsourced, subjective as to inclusion, and without sourcing for why any individual entry belongs on the list is a WP:OR violation as well. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- this must be sourceable, even if it would take a major rewrite.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - grossly subjective original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and quickly. The sentence that begins "most people would agree" is enough for me to scream OR!. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - and WTF is a "handbag song" anyway? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as soft redirect to Wiktionary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconversion

Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to one of the linked topics.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but make into a soft redirect that provides a link to the Wiktionary article ^F*^L*^RAP 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just made this into a soft-redirect, more worth keeping now. 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs)

Keep as a soft redir. It's okay now. Jellogirl (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Mafia (Mocha album)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my. There is no good reason why this should be listed separate from the parent article, Mocha (rapper). In fact, I'm not even convinced that that article is encyclopedic or passes WP:BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwaldian Theorem

I proded the article a while back, but it was removed and the page was moved to the title "Mathematics in Futurama". However, since January 20, there had been no attempts to expand the page and it was basically only about the "Greenwaldian Theorem" so I moved it back to that page. The "Greenwaldian Theorem" while it is supposedly accurate doesn't appear to have any notability (A google search gets 45 hits while a Google Books search gets zilch) and it's only notability is its brief appearance on a chalkboard in Futurama: Bender's Big Score. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitantly delete While the math is there, and it is an actual equation and mathematic theorem... the fact that it its own futurama based article is out of place. Is there any way that this equation could be an addition to the Pythagorean Theorem article, with a description about how it was featured on an episode of Futurama? That would seem to satisfy all parties... Queerbubbles (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually wasn't featured. All that happened was that it was written on a blackboard, it wasn't mentioned or discussed in the movie. Most of the information here comes from a DVD extra about Math in Futurama. I agree that if it is a notable equation, then perhaps it should be mentioned in the article for the Pythagorean Theorem. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, i didnt know that. ok then... Delete delete delete and put the equation in the talk for the phythag theorem article. Queerbubbles (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article. Include as an item in "Cultural references in futurama" and/or "The Pythagorean theorem in popular culture." There is a reason for sections like those--precisely to deal with this sort of material. DGG (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters within The Simpsons

Most of these characters don't have any real world notability. The ones that do (Itchy & Scratchy and Radioactive Man) already have pages. Others can easily be (or already are) merged elsewhere - Poochie to The Itchy & Scratchy Show, Malibu Stacy to List of products in The Simpsons, Fallout Boy to Radioactive Man, Lard Lad to Treehouse of Horror VI, etc. Either way, none of the characters without pages have any real world info, and notability is not inherited. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in wasting an afd if it can't be deleted, although it is amazingly stupid that I'm affected by this even though I haven't been involved in that arbcom case in any major way. Withdrawn. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not affected by it, the article is. A discussion could still take place. An admin just couldn't delete the article while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just withdraw it for now and renominate it once the ArbCom case is finished. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on strength of arguments. The previous discussion was a "no consensus", the "realwolrd information" is not relevant for the article (education of the authors), it is not indicated which parts may be worth keeping or merging... On the other hand, "I support deletion because X does" is an ignorable argument as well. Fram (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education in The Simpsons

AfDs for this article:

I created this page about a year ago and I've decided that it's time to try to kill my own creation. It is just a random group of information - what schools the writers & characters went to, a list of schools, etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also no real world info, other than the list of what writers went to Harvard, but that is complete listcruft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom as primary author and echoing his concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will support Scorpion on any WP:SIMPSONS matters. I will also usually support a primary contributor on matters in regard to changes to their article. In this case, Scorpion and the author are the same. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --Simpsons fan 66 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has be nominated before and the consensus was to keep so that should be it. Keep the page, end of story. Bhowden (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the there was no consensus. Part of the reason it wasn't deleted is because the nominator had nominated a half a dozen similar pages for the exact same reason, so it was basically a train wreck. One of those pages has since been deleted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to reconsider the pages individually. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of it is fancruft for fans of the show itself and the writers themselves. Martarius (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no real opinion in the deletion, but if it will be deleted, I would suggest to salvage any relevant information and merge it somewhere (probably Springfield Elementary School) the writers colleges could go on their own pages if they are not already there. Rhino131 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and it doesn't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. The article contains real world information. --Pixelface (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, some of the information here is worth keeping maybe move the parts worth keeping to another article. Asasinz (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research collection of info from the show. Little real world context for this non notable aspect of the show. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Maitch (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Longcore

A failure of WP:BIO. An article on an insurance claims adjuster who is described as "one of the foremost authorities on property and insurance claims in the world." Much of the article is focused on his single book, Insurance Claim Secrets REVEALED!, published through Trafford Publishing, a vanity press. Ordering information and a link are provided. The subject is first described as having won four Grammy Awards - at odds, perhaps, with the later claim that he has "been on recordings that have won four Grammy Awards". The creation of Authorboy1, a single purpose account which is self-described as "Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company" on the discussion page. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanispam. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Victoriagirl:

1. I've removed the "foremost authority" sentence. 2. Trafford Publishing is a Publish On Demand (POD) publisher, not a vanity press. 3. I've revised the Grammy information to make sure both comments are consistent with each other. 4. The Authorboy1 is my comment through my publishing company name. No effort at misinformation here...I'm brand new to this forum and there are lots of the procedures I don't understand. Besides, complaining about my account name does not answer the issue. I was asking the person who made the negative comment to explain so I can answer any concerns.

Russell D. LongcoreAuthorboy1 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Authorboy1, I'm afraid I can't agree that Trafford is not a vanity press - despite its use of POD technology. Can we agree that your book is self-published? In any case, the designation, while indicative, is not determinative of non-notability. The nomination is based on a perceived failure of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. With respect, no sign is given that you have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Moreover, the links provided for the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, the Telarc label and the Grammy Awards do not so much as mention your name. I personally feel that your accomplishments in the insurance and music fields are as presented. That said, here personal feelings aren't what count - what it required are verifiable sources. I have no complaint about your account name, rather I was attempting to get to the root source of an article created by a single purpose account. I recognize you are a new user, and I do hope you contribute further, but I would be in error if I didn't point out Wikipedia's guideline concerning conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of businesses on The Simpsons

The only business on this page with any real world info is Kwik-E-Mart and all of that is already covered on its page. So this fails WP:FICT. There are some real world places named after these fictional businesses (ie. Krusty Burger) but anything notable can be merged into List of fictional locations in The Simpsons, as there is no need for two pages about locations in the show. I'm sure some will say there is no need for one page about locations on the show, but, I'm not going to afd it (yet). and -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of fictional locations in The Simpsons is for cities and towns, such as Springfield and Shelbyville. It was not intended for businesses, schools or other places within towns. So if this article is to be merged, we should choose another merge target. szyslak 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the word "location" would refer to all settings - towns, businesses, etc. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the fictional locations article should be moved to "List of fictional cities and towns on The Simpsons", or something of that nature. szyslak 01:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing that articles name here, but it used to be named "List of fictional places on The Simpsons" but I moved it yesterday because I tried to merge the two pages and "locations" is an apt description. It also allows for non-businesses or cities to be included, like the church or the Simpsons' house. However, the merge was undone so I took it afd. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nominator and note that the article appears to fail WP:NOT#PLOT as pretty much nothing but regurgitations of the episodes in which the businesses appear. Those few Simpsons businesses with any independent notability would seem to have articles already. Otto4711 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have already outlined most of which I have to say on the talk page but to put it simply I think that merging this into another article simply will create an article that will be too large, my intentions were to expand this article as I get time to and was hoping others would add to this page as well, if the person above doesn't like my writing style then change it write about the businesses in a way that best describes the businesses, I was just referencing episodes as citation.

So I feel once completed this will make for a pretty informative article. As for getting rid of it altogether the only complete articles on here writing about the businesses seen in The Simpsons are the articles on Moes and the Kwiki-Mart which you can write heaps about as they are seen regularly. But to write something about a businesses that appears on only a handful of episodes would end up with a very small article. My intentions here were simply to expand on some of the other Simpsons articles like the article on Media, Religeon, Education and Politics, I figure that if all these can have there own article why not a page on business. I also think the businesses I have written about are notable too such as The Leftorium, Bowl-A-Rama, Aztec Theater and so on the person who merged didn't even include all the businesses. Bhowden (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Part of your argument is basically WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neither of the two articles are that large, so it's not that big of a problem. Why have two pages of cruft when they can easily be merged? Also, read WP:FICT which says that fictional things need real world notability, and the only business on this page with any of that is Kwik-E-Mart. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea - I actually just thought of a better idea, my inspiration to create such a page came from here List of products in The Simpsons. This page lists the notable products on The Simpsons I figured there would also be a page with the businesses and since I couldn't find one I created this page. I was thinking maybe actually merge these too somehow maybe even have it include companies so basically it could list the products shown on that page and the businesses on the page you want to delete and then also companies such as Channel Six where the news is produced. In fact you could add to the themes a businesses/commerical/economic type theme basically covering all these entities that make money. Other entities such as the churchs, schools, police wouldn't go here though as thats government, religion etc... So if you have no problem with this idea I this is what I will do. Bhowden (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing the future of other articles here, but the list of products recently passed an afd, and several of the products on that page do have real world notability. I highly doubt you'll find any for the Leftorium or King Toots. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the list is fancruft and the article on the Kwik-E-Mart gives users enough information on buisinesses in the programme itself. Martarius (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Only the Kwik-E-mart is notable and it has it's own article. --Simpsons fan 66 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added all the businesses to the locations page, which can easily be made into a page with all the places in the show. Just as a side note, I would say Moe's is notable as well because it has been used more than any other location. But all information has been merged into another page, so this page is really not needed anymore. Rhino131 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the products page and remove any double ups. Asasinz (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I undid the marger at List of fictional locations in The Simpsons as a possible GFDL violation. See Talk:List of fictional locations in The Simpsons#Undid merger due to GFDL concerns. szyslak 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two of these already have articles, and Krusty Burger and the Android's Dungeon are well known as well. All of these are verifiable by consulting episodes of The Simpsons. I wouldn't be judging any article on WP:FICT right now. If you think about it, there's no need for an article about The Simpsons, but we have one anyway. Keep. --Pixelface (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. This fails our standards of notability for fictional topics. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously does't fail FICT, since Kwik E Mart could supply enough refs to meet notability requirements by itself. Simpson editors are on a tear, creating a new GA every few weeks. If you delete this now, it will be remade and eventually become a GA anyway, so why not let it live until then. As each episode that a business is featured in becomes a GA, someone just needs to grab the most relevant refs that discuss the business and add it to this page. It's also a good way to grow GAs on the individual businesses without having a bunch of stubs until they're improved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kwik-E-Mart has its own page and the notability of the rest of these businesses is not inherited by that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say anything about inheritance. This is not a sub article of Kwik E Mart. An article about the Squishi Machine would be one that's relying on inheritance. A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage and so one, which the Kwik E Mart supplies a lot of, and again, it's a good way to organize what would otherwise be a bunch of stubs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said "Obviously does't fail FICT, since Kwik E Mart could supply enough refs to meet notability requirements by itself" therefore your basic argument is that it should be kept since the Kwik-E-Mart is notable. By your logic, a "list of bald characters on The Simpson" would be notable because it would include Homer Simpson. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Badly fails WP:FICT, despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Johnston (Consultant)

Vanity page of a non-notable consultant. No secondary sources of any kind. Biography posted by a representative of the subject, so COI issues as well. DarkAudit (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Subject of little or no notability. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain As a scientist, insignificant publication record (4 academic papers, none cited significantly), as a technologist and technical author, his books have been published by a significant technical publisher; some of them reprint his very long list of columns and technical papers, and I suppose he is of borderline significance here. The editorial advisory board memberships are trivial. I would have expected someone with his background to have significantly more professional memberships. DGG (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability and reliable sources, issues with WP:COI. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Bearian, and probably basically spam anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Giggs

Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played for a fully professional club. Being related to a famous footballer does not confer notability (as noted in the Romeo Beckham AfD). The only thing left is him being arrested on the accusation of supplying cocaine, which I don't believe makes him notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article states that he played for Livingston, but I could find no verification of this, perhaps they meant played for Livingston reserves. If no evidence can be supplied to show that he did play for Livingson then I believe that he is not notable. English peasant 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source shows he hasn't played for Livi. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am curious about this Giggs, if you look at the references list on the article, you will see there are a number of references from a major news corporation known as the BBC. So clearly he exists and the BBC have gone and given him notability in his own right via association of being Ryan Giggs brother. Next question of mine, where do you class Bangor City F.C. in professional terms, because it seems they have played some European matches. If it turns out that Bangor City played Rhodri in one of their European matches, would this not also qualify him for notability? Govvy (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bangor are not fully-professional. The only clubs in the League of Wales which have been are Barry Town, TNS and Llanelli.[37] пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's situations like these that make me very very wary of the use of fully professional squads as deciding factors in situations of national first divisions... matt91486 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the external link to FCUM from the article carries an interview with Giggs in which he says he played two first-team games for Torquay as a 16-year-old. Doesn't say what sort of games, or what name he was using at the time, but if they were in a fully-pro competition then he would pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. This source has no record of him playing in a league game (as either Giggs or Jones), but I guess it could have been a cup game... пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing on allfootballers.com under either name either....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are clearly enough reliable sources such as the BBC and the Guardian which satisfy the "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." bit of WP:BIO so the fact that he doesn't qualify under WP:FOOTY really doesn't matter. John Hayes
- Delete I've changed my mind on that, per comments below. John Hayes^talk 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^talk 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as a footballer according to WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY. Notability isn't inherited otherwise I'm going to create myself as the 13th cousin 4 times removed to James Cook. All you're left with is being a drug-dealing estate agent, and again I'll ... He's worthy of a mention but only a small section of Ryan Giggs. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is non-notable as a footballer, failing the standard by which we judge other players who don't happen to have famous relatives. So the only claims for notability are his criminal record and his famous sibling. Being drug dealer or getting convicted for assault don't normally confer notability and notability is not inherited. The fact that the article is well referenced doesn't really matter, I could write a well referenced article about Romeo Beckham or Enzo Zidane, but that would not mean that they were notable, just that the press obsession with celebrity has spread to obsession with their families too. English peasant 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows he satisfies WP:BIO as a footballer. The BBC references have him signing for League of Wales clubs (2) and petty crime (2), both these last headed "Giggs' brother ...". His minor criminal activities only attract the attention of the BBC because he's Ryan Giggs's little brother, and the Guardian reference is to one item in a list of abortive sting attempts by a journalist, this one perpetrated because Rhodri Giggs is Ryan Giggs's brother. Per nom, being related to a notable person does not confer notability. Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can anyone find out who played for Bangor in the 2000 UEFA Cup qualifies Round match where they lost to Halmstads BK 11-0 ? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - First Leg - Mulliner, Johnson, Foster (Owen 82), Jargine, S Williams, R Williams, Rowlands, Hughes (Comley-Exceli 78), Roberts, Coady (E Williams 67), Bird. Second Leg - Mulliner, Johnson, Foster, E Williams, S Williams, R Williams (Coady 51), Rowlands, Hughes, Owen (Comley-Exceli 78), Hazelden (Bird 78), Cross). Courtsey of Rothmans Football Yearbook 2001-02 p742. - fchd (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cheers, doesn't look like he played. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wouldn't have mattered if he did. Bangor were not a fully pro team, so the notability criteria still weren't met. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is one of those situations that no one wanted to go through specifics for and thought I was crazy when we were debating the criteria. If he plays for a top national division and played in a European Cup match, I think notability should be conferred regardless of his team's semi-pro status. I was blown off in the debate in this regard, so it's not as if I'm bringing this up out of nowhere. I think (hypothetically) these things together coupled with his 'tabloid' notability would help to make him be notable. matt91486 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, under the current rules, if an amateur team win the Champions League none of their players would be entitled to an article because of it, whereas they would almost certainly be notable (highly unlikely yes, but just for the sake of argument). But regardless we have to work to the current rules, and this isn't the place for it. John Hayes^talk 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having offences deemed of interest to an intrusive press because of one's relations might be good enough for the tabloid's, but it is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am going on weak keep, he passed WP:BIO basic notability having had publications on him in BBC, Guardian and News of the World. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to see an article about him that does not refer to his staus as Ryan's brother before I would believe that he had any newsworthiness in his own right. There have been many articles recently about Derek Conway's sons, but they have no claim to notability beyond their connection to their father. Kevin McE (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read the news articles, they are all about Rhodri and they all do mention he is Ryan's brother, but the fact remains each article tells exactly what Rhodri has been doing and if you look at each article this is notability to Wales mainly. But the fact remains, Rhodri does pass the basic WP:BIO notability rules by having publications from sources such as I stated previously. Govvy (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I thought Wikipedia was an Encylcopedia so why can we not have articles about people that have been in the news for reasons that don't frankly matter. Isn't Wikipedia ment to contribute to the world, what if somebody is looking for Rhdori Giggs, do we turn them down? No, Wikipedia is ment to help others! Sharadjalota456 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stotfield

Stotfield does not exist as a village but only as a part of the town of Lossiemouth. The Lossiemouth article fully explains Stotfield as a part of Lossiemouth. All Ordnance Survey maps show that Stotfield is not an independent settlement Bill Reid | Talk 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not an independent settlement now. It originally was according to the Lossiemouth article. WP:Notability of settlements does not expire with annexation. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Stotfield, Scotland. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A move appears unnecessary since Stotfield appears to be a unique place name. Anyhow, the name would be "Stotfield, Moray" per town, county naming conventions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Gene93k. matt91486 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Annexation doesn't magically transform a notable topic to non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade, I'm not sure how or why we'd ever want to delete such an article. RFerreira (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McCasland

Autobiographical article about non-notable subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable from start to finish. Alberon (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
discussion page for this article has already been nominated for deletion and reworked to fit to the according standards - The entry for Cameron McCasland has been edited to conform with Wikipedia policy. Mel 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Wallace (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case but it doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it helps, these are the notability criteria:
    - Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
    - With significant roles 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She-Ra, Chiller Cinema as well as Creature Feature have a strong fan base both in the United States and Internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Wallace (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your IMDB link for Chiller Cinema doesn't even have a viewer rating because it has less than five users votes. Can you provide any other evidence? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The connection to She-Ra is tenuous and not notable. Also the claim that he won a competition to design characters needs to be backed up by an external independant link. The same is true of the Rescue 911 story. Alberon (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quiet Company Video on MTV.CA Also added links to the filmography on the main page to multiple IMDB links as well as music videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Wallace (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Retrieved sources in main article, also per notability criteria:
- - - Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
Listed accordingly in article
- - - With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Listed accordingly per IMDB links in filmography
- - - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Listed as winner of The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards for contributions to Chiller Cinema website noted in the main article.Joe Wallace (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have a problem with notability. Of the feature films listed, for example, most are still in production, and the only two that have actually been released he was a sound recordist for, which I don't think qualifies as a significant role. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While I acknowledge the effort, I do not think that the entry, as it stands, meets notability guidelines. In short, the subject has had no "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", nor has he "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". I see no indication that Cameron McCasland has "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". While I recognize that the subject won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award for his contributions to a website, but I don't believe this to be notable. I must add that I am troubled by the history of both Cameron McCasland and The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards. I note that both were created by Cameron McCasland (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. What's more, 68.53.171.99 (talk · contribs) and Joe Wallace (talk · contribs), two more single purpose accounts, are the the chief editors for these two articles. I respectfully suggest that all involved consult Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In writing the above, I repeated Joe Wallace's claim (above) that McCasland had received a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award. This would appear to be incorrect. The article states that McCasland "lent movie reviews and articles to the shows [sic] website, which won a Rondo Award at The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards back in 2005." The source provided indicates that the actual recipient was Dr. Gangrene. No mention is made of McCasland.Victoriagirl (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has contributed to the article himself, and the entire filmography reads like a directory of Internet links. Notability may exist but is currently not proven. As it now stands, the article is not Wikipedia-suitable. TINY MARK 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calyx (mathematics)

No evidence that surface is notable, or a commonly used term for the surface. No entry on MathWorld Jeodesic (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. It's a notable geometric surface. See, for example, this article on the significance of calyx surfaces in understanding singularity-related concepts.Majoreditor (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my recommendation to keep based on Arcfrk's input. This term may be a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to that review in the article and notified the mathematics WikiProject. Hopefully that will shed more light on whether this surface is notable. Geometry guy 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have essentially a single source for the term and concept: Herwig Hauser from the Institut für Mathematik at the University of Innsbruck. The gallery of algebraic surfaces linked to from the References section is the same as the "Bildergalerie" from his home page, and he is one of the authors of the one other reference, the book review. If this is as notable as the other surfaces from the gallery such as the Buggle, Crixxi, Dattel, Dullo, Gupf, Octdong and Plop, it is NOT. --Lambiam 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention their "Cube" $x^{6}+y^{6}+z^{6}=1$ $x^{6}+y^{6}+z^{6}=1$ , which isn't cubical. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what bothers me about the source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also only found references connected with Herwig Hauser. The name appears to be derived from the shape of flowers, and most Google searches get a lot of flower references, so it is hard to find mathematical references. Of course this proves nothing! Geometry guy 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is nonstandard, and it's doubtful that such a special surface would have another standard name. There is one article in MathSciNet and five in Zbl/JFM database that mention "calyx", none of them in this context (five deal with biology and one, by F.W.Neumann in 1869, purports to attach names of flowers to certain cubic curves). Arcfrk (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I don't have access to MathSciNet or Zbl/JFM database. If that's what they show then the term is likely a neologism. I am retracting my opinion to keep. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Electronic Research Archive for Mathematics Jahrbuch Database is free, as far as I could tell, but only covers the period until 1942. As a bonus, it has many links to the original papers themselves. Arcfrk (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. If the term gains currency among mainstream mathematicians, an article of this quality could be created in a matter of minute. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is a neologism and I'm not convinced the surface itself is of any particular note. As the surface contains a cuspidal edge it has infinite co-dimension, hence falling outside of the main classification of singular surfaces. It also does not appear to fall in families where cuspidal edges would normally occur. My hunch is that the reason it appeared in the paper above is that it is a particular awkward beast providing a good example for resolution algorithms to cope with. --Salix alba (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article per the above. It could be given as an example in algebraic surface, though. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it is starting to snow here :-) Geometry guy 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a nonce word, used only by a small set of people, and the article has no potential for expansion or proper context. I also concur with other delete rationales above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn nomination, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Harbor

~~Contested PROD, IMDB entry is not nessacarially a valid claim to notability, no assertion of notability otherwise.~~ Mr Senseless (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Notability_(films) states that any wide released film is notable. I messed up on this one and have no issue with withdrawing it.Mr Senseless (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable cast & crew, and nominated for a (minor) award. Granted, that's not much, but I don't see a substantial case being made for non-notability. PC78 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty well anything distributed by Dreamworks is notable. Pburka (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Simha

Taking it here, mainly to empty out Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2007. Lack of notability Montchav (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Columnist in popular Indian daily newspaper, plentiful sources in Kannada. Catchpole (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to some of those sources? Note that journalists and newspaper columnists, just like any other people, need secondary sources about them; articles written by him do nothing to prove notability. cab (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He is a columnist in Vijaya Karnataka, which is most circulated daily news paper in the Indian state of Karnataka. His column 'Bettale Jagattu' is one of the much popular columns in that news paper. The column also gets co-published in the ThatsKannada.com portal. - KNM ^Talk 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot write an article without secondary sources. Some reliable, intellectually independent source which verifies the claim that he's the most popular columnist of that newspaper, would be a start. Primary sources, like newspaper columns the subject has published himself, do nothing to help prove notability. cab (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful Info Nagaraj007 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL. cab (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely a journalist. However, not every journalist with an occasional column is notable. No sources demonstrating notability here. Relata refero (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KNM. Shyamsunder 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability, so unless reliable sources can be found, it's WP:OR. Writers are not per se notable. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another working writer; fails notability check. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected to Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2006). Information was already there; I added an additional reference from this article. --MCB (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dair ambush

Seems like a major skirmish and does not deserve an article TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. A minor news item. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War. How is this "bigger than regular skirmish events"; the article itself calls it a "small-scale attack". Clarityfiend (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per aboveOo7565 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article was quite a succesful rebel offensive, its linked to on the Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War page, a seperate page was created because the event was bigger than regular skirmish events and has a lot more details. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Pieter. I also suspect that we could find many additional sources if we had someone look for Russian language sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War per the discussion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urus-Martan ambush. This was a small battle in a long and large war and is not notable in isolation. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Wikiacc (°) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter dino

...a slang term for people who aren't in a fan scene anymore. Enough said. UsaSatsui (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ...for a game which was practically still borne when released. So many reasons to delete to choose from. This one is broadest. BusterD (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's documented in some written material, but I do not thing this phrase is notable outside the context of this particular fan group. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree 100% with BusterD. There are a lot of reasons! Canyouhearmenow 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. It did make me smile. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism that has yet to migrate beyond the swamps in which it evolved. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability and notability issues were tagged months ago, but never resolved. Dl2000 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been around fandom a long time and I have never heard of this term before. Not that I need to be the litmus test here, but if it had notabilty I figure someone should have heard of it at least. Web Warlock (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BT1469

Article on a specific piece of corporate stationary- an envelope. Non notable. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hard to get less notable than this. Jfire (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:NOT. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was a speedy tried? Blast Ulna (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth a merge into the company article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G11 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). cab (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bean-beans

Non notable YouTube series, no reliable sources. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another YouTube fans using WP for advertising. Dekisugi (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A quick Youtube search reveals that either their search engine is broken, or this is a hoax. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant advertisement. Canyouhearmenow 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Eaton

Fails WP:MUSIC. He plays a game too? I don't know about that link. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – It should be noted that this is the second Afd nomination of this subject. The first was closed as no consensus as noted here. [38] The reason for the Keep opinion, in my case, is that there may be a case for a small claim to notability based on the articles found here at Google News [39]. Shoessss | Chat 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambiguate. Dan Eaton is also the name of a TV chef on Time Warner Cable News. So Ghitys will not matter here.Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute rubbish. This article conveys no information--I tried to follow some of the links, with little linking to anything of relevance. Get rid, get rid of it. -Kmaguir1 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Lab

Lacks notability, totally reads like an advert. If anyone can find notability (and this is a primary school we're talking about here), then it should probably be deleted and start over (IMHO). SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Given that many schools create WP articles as a class exercise, perhaps it could be kept for them to improve? OTOH, I doubt it meets notability criteria. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I believe this falls under WP:NOT#HOST. If they want to learn how to use MediaWiki as a class exercise, they can install it locally. If they want to learn how Wikipedia works, then this is exactly how it works. Articles that do not meet inclusion criteria are deleted, often through AfD. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Probably notable based on differences in style from standard US primary schools, and alleged extra community activities, but its hard to tell without other sources than the school's website itself. Needs to be cleaned up, referenced, and made to read less like an ad.Z00r (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary and Middle schools are generally considered non-notable according to WP. The inclusion of independent reliable sources that establish notability could change my mind. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Name squatting: "Discovery Lab" is the name of any number of services for middle schools. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There are lots of popular terms we know exist and have contemporary useage, but we don't have articles about them unless it can meet WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. It's all very simple, really. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial hardcore

Non-notable sub-sub-genre; wholly unreferenced and most likely original research. Only two of the artists listed and none of the labels even have articles here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subgenre, there are many labels which one has a different sound of hardcore then some others, and they all call themself industrial hardcore. But it's really hard to collect references in topics like that, especially since it's underground music. I mean how would you add source material? Adding links to labels which call themself industrial hardcore is enough? Or adding samples from tracks, or what? --TaZaR 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment References from reliable sources, like articles from established magazines or newspapers—you need third party references. If it's so underground that reliable sources can't be found, it's an indication that the genre does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of bands labelled under the digital hardcore subgenre in the 1990s were also applied the label Industrial hardcore. I couldn't tell you if they're similar enough, but I've suggested a merge on the talk page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with distaste: I cannot abide "nu industrial slo core death metal viking folk" sorts of sieves, but there is widespread usage of this term, though no discernible meaning for it. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The label is supposed to mean Industrial music (noise bands like Eindestreusen die Neubaten...or however it is spelled) plus hardcore punk rock. It's not "hardcore that's really hard." If you marry The Germs with Throbbing Gristle, you'd have it, I guess. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Unless a reliable source can be provided, the article is un-verifiable and original research. I get what the combination of words implies, and I am quite familiar with digital hardcore—or, at least when that record label was new and exciting. Just because people use it as a term doesn't make industrial hardcore a notable genre; it needs verifiable sources. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there are no reliable sources, it fails verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent and well thought out nomination. You have this one right. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacksaw character

Very WP:NN series. References do not provide any insight. Main prose of article, the episode synopsi and background story, do not show up any hits on google indicating WP:OR. The link to the video hosting site where the short films are shown tell me that (taken from random) Episode 3 has 5 views (including my 1 to check the views)... Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable online only release with limited audience/following. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as utterly non-notable web content. It was already speedied once a few days ago under the title H.A.C.K.S.A.W. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any specific criteria appropriate for a speedy delete of this article, which did you have in mind? -Verdatum (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - CSD A7, non-notable web content. G12 (spam) would probably apply here as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a pretty interesting series, but the article doesn't even remotely establish notability or real world context. Looks like a non-notable web-series. Based on the detail provided, I wouldn't be surprised if notability could be established, at which point, I'd change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salty. No secound chance for this. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete other films and popular culture/fiction etc have pages on wikipedia.Annex0 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC) — Annex0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't delete Page creator and [news on this website]195.229.242.154 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page was created by gravitytv (who I work for) as part of garnering underground support the project "HACKSAW" put on hiatus.Dan Burns (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable and is attracting attention from new users edit-warring over the content. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Dans

The only assertion of notability is of being a "highly media-exposed professor", but no sources are cited to support this claim, and none appear in a Google search for Enrique Dans except blogs. The external links are all to self-promotional blogs. Neparis (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a search, this subject does not assert notability. Canyouhearmenow 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The claims are tenuous: he is a professional "expert" for news magazines. Since those are ostensibly Spanish or regional information sources, it certainly wouldn't be sufficient for the en.wikipedia, and it's actually not sufficient for the es., I would argue. "Dude who's on TV a lot" isn't much of a claim. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ivy League

This article has no references that actually mention the subject, on top of it being non-notable neologism cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Canadian neologism, with little to no grounding in reality. Certainly no widespread use of this term in Canada. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a {{contradict-self}} tag for AFD comments? ITYMTS American neologism. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be such a tag, but I don't think I made a contradiction. There is no Canadian Ivy League, as the article states, and to create this term (by mixing "Canadian" and "Ivy league") would be a neologism about some feature of Canada. But speaking as a Canadian university student, I've certainly never heard this term before in my life, and I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate place to promote new logisms. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to do when people appear not to be reading the article. It is NOT a "Canadian neologism". It is a word used by American students looking for universities that may be an alternative to the US Ivy League (and their guidance counselors, parents, etc.). It is also (in one form) a fully verifiable marketing campaign by Canadian universities that wish to attract these students. It has almost nothing to do with Canadian thinking about their universities. Your observations may well be true, but have hardly any relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's irrelevant then don't worry about it. It's the job of the closing editor to give proper weight to votes and come to a proper decision. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprisingly few google hits for this term. I honestly would have expected more than 27. Mandsford (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's no widely-accepted definition of the schools on the list, but the term is widespread among the college-prep demographic (high school students, their families, and guidance counselors), with "Canadian Ivies" probably more commonly used -- although Canadian Ivy is actually a marketing term used by two (once three) particular schools. If that's not enough, we could always merge with Education in Canada#Post-secondary education or List of universities in Canada. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let me count the ways: 1) "Ivy League" is an athletic association, and this is not, and therefore there cannot be a "Canadian ivy league"; 2) "Ivy league" as "high quality" is one of those terms tossed about willy nilly, and it represents an non-neutral point of view to take a stand; 3) merely reporting what "other people" call a Canadian "ivy league" is chasing the horizon, because there is no significant effect of their calling this or that school a member of this supposed non-league, so there is no phenomenon to describe; 4) it is a POV war that must be eternal. See the horror of Southern Ivies for what you're invited. So, with no purpose, no reliable sources, no definite inclusion criteria, there is a clear, complete "delete." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1.) The term "Ivy League" is not generally associated with an athletic conference- ask any anyone from any location. High school students, in particular, refer to several Ivy leagues, as a mere comparison of universities. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform factually, while portraying certain commonly accepted elements. That being said, the article clearly states that there is no formal "Canadian Ivy League." The term is actually widely used in both the US and Canada. 2.) I agree that the term "Ivy League" is tossed about in an erroneous fashion, however the term is still used. The term "Canadian Ivy," has been used both in print, AND exists as a website: www.canadianivy.ca 3.) Other "Ivy Leagues" have been created on wikipedia as well, on LESSER grounds. Why is this term not entitled to its own article? 4.) No significant effect? That's poor logic: the name is the effect of the school, not vice-versa. Additionally, even if the term had an effect, it would only raise awareness of the top Canadian Universities. No matter how you see it, "chasing the horizon" makes no sense and has no impact. --6mat1 | Talk 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough sourcing here to make this "fly", and there's absolutely no reason why the neologism couldn't, or won't, stick. We should try to make judgments that are fair. This seems like a POV war. -Kmaguir1 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When it can be shown to have stuck, we should have an article on it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone check the references? I can read one (and it loosely applies), but the rest to subscriptions/books to which I have no access. I do not believe they are as strong a support as they seem. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use the power of the free registration, Luke, and you too will see that these are articles which are substantially about the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very skeptical. I'm going to make a personal test. I don't know yet how it will turn out. I'm going to search in Google Books for exact phrase "Canadian Ivy League" and related terms. If there are more than 500 relevant hits I'll recommend "keep," if less than 100 I'll recommend "delete," otherwise I won't recommend either way. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) There are only 5 hits on "Canadian Ivy League." There are only 21 on "Canadian Ivy" of which only 5 or 6 are about schools and the rest are about a variety of ivy. There are only 1750 hits on "Ivy League" itself so I set the bar way too high, but 5 hits is not enough. There are about 80 relevant hits on "Public Ivy" and about 50 on "Little Ivy League."[reply]

Comment You're letting WP:GHITS trump actual sources? Besides, you are using an inappropriate metric for Google Books. There are many, many notable terms which don't appear more than a single-digit number of times in Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, evidence of real use is very weak. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's useful -- and being used. As the article evolves it will become more useful, but even as it is there hardly seems much justification in excising it. Roregan (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a WP:USEFUL policy I don't know about? IMHO it fails WP:NOTABILITY, and thats what is being debated here. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects." Would you care to explain how the current set of sources does not demonstrate notability? --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy. It's a personal essay. The actual relevant policy is notability, and there is a general notability guideline there. JJL (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was policy. It is an essay that interprets policy, and does not, in my view, state any new policy. WP:N is still satisified, if you need that stated explicitly in order to engage the argument. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers, Cornellrocky, I'm sorry I didn't phrase my vote in the proper format for you. I was trying to offer my opinion as to why the article, in my opinion, ought to be kept. I don't have the codes for the criteria memorized. I learned two today though: WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DONTBITE. Have you heard of that second one? Roregan (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The cited sources (barely) establish the notability of this incredibly stupid term. --ElKevbo (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don McCloskey

Tagged for notability since April 2007; web search reveals a few blog hits but no reliable sources that I could find. "All but ignored by the music industry at large" == fails WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some recent news hits but they appear to be sheer concert/gig listings and filtered archives seem to be more of the same. Fails WP:MUSIC as no RS coverage Travellingcari (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's impossible to describe his music, it's impossible to talk about it here, too. Without a label with distribution, there can be no airplay or sales, and without sales, there can be no market position, and without a market position, he's a guy playing music. I like guys playing music, but they don't often get to be in encyclopedias. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deirdre McCloskey, a moderately famous economist. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. note that the redirect was, in fact, the original contents of the page...... -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and advert-sounding language is one of my biggest pet peeves. SingCal 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylcox

Completely non notable film. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by author, a single purpose account. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, but just you wait Dylcox (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some kind of threat? J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm just saying that it's gonna be big Dylcox (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once it is notable, it can have an article. Get the coverage, then get a Wikipedia article. J Milburn (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the concerns of crystal-ballism, neither this movie nor its production company have any online presence beyond a couple of YouTube videos and an under-construction website. The YouTube trailers are not indicative of a product that is likely to meet film notability standards, either. Serpent's Choice (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vapor, so there is no covering a thing that simply does not exist. If it gets made, gets distributed, gets seen, and does something, then it will be a notable product. Violation of WP:VANITY. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not a reliable source. Travellingcari (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homegain.com

This article was created a few days ago and has been CSD tagged and prodded. Virtually every contributor to it is a SPA and they seem to do nothing but edit war over its contents. So I'm taking it to AfD to decide if it meets the WP:CORP guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. 6th most popular real estate web site according to CNN. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concept that a company was once sued in its history is not notable. The fact that the lawsuit was settled and is three years old makes it less notable. What is notable is that the contributor of the article has been posting this information for three years on various forums. This is the contributors latest forum to publish non relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandjusticeforall (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
User blocked indef. Nakon 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with reservations. Being #6 on a list may or may not be enough to establish encyclopedic notability, but I am uneasy about the fact that lots of completely unsourced claims are being edit-warred over. I am wondering if NPOV is possible for an article that seems to have no neutral editors, and I am wondering if the subject can truly be notable if no uninvolved editors can be found. In other words, is this subject important to anyone who is not involved (directly or otherwise) in the edit war? References, please, and if you can't provide them, then the article should go. Dethme0w (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: #6 on a list would be ok, but this is a contrived search. The lawsuit makes this suitable for In the News and WP:NEWS, but not the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, the top half is written like an ad. I.e. the article fails the deletion guideline for both of its POV's. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaving aside the do no harm principle, this is a non-notable, web-based, service business of the sort that I find particularly problematic. And, they claim to provide online marketing solutions. Notable businesses offer products and/or services; only non-notable businesses provide "solutions". As a wise person once said, "Barf out! Gag me with a spoon!" - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that the linked citation appears to go to a local government website that apparently puts court dockets or documents online. I didn't dig too deeply there, but this is not independent coverage; as the traditional disclaimer goes, legal pleadings provide only one party's version of the facts, no matter how much feigned dudgeon and moral hyperventilation they contain. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Largely non-notable company that has been sued by some of its employees. It appears that the entire article is being used as a WP:COATRACK by which to defame the company about this lawsuit. Given the fact. Given the relatively little amount of neutral source material about the company EXCEPT for the lawsuit, it is impossible to build an article compliant with WP:NPOV, since the article gives undue weight to the lawsuit, which of course, it the ONLY reason this company is known. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable is that company itself did not post this entree-the stuff about what the company does was concoted by author of the article just so he could write about the three year old law suit. Law suits are a dime a dozen especially ones that are three years old and have been settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.29.4 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Masters (band)

Fake article Dirtymics (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a hoax - Google search results lead to various forums, which point back to Wikipedia as the source of the information. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Master Plan, if the band article is a hoax, then the album must be. Again no reliable sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Definite hoax. Canyouhearmenow 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. There would be something in music news if these artists were producing an album together. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is "early 2008," and the "deteriorating genre" of hip-hop? Yeah, just vandalism/wishful thinking. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete both as hoaxalicious™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax, and not a good one either Doc Strange (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Marvin Stone

I can find no notability to meet WP:BIO guidelines on this person. The originating editor assured me he'd work to improve the article and outline the notability beyond the subject's being a pastor at a historical church. He hasn't returned since. ju66l3r (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ he appears to be the author of a number of books as well. Online sources are problematic due to the period in which he lived. I'd hold off to see what else can be found, otherwise delete. Travellingcari (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, there are a number of news reports, but most seem to involve his obit and or being named to various parishes and none about his books. If something is found, he can be re-created. Travellingcari (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sub-sub-sub-stub and A3 speedy delete. An article on the guy would be ok, but this is a telephone book entry. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's little sourcing available to the public, little information given that could possibly be of relevance to anyone anywhere. -Kmaguir1 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please wait before closing. I'm building it up from meager sources found through NY Times and Google Books. Guy was notable in his day, but it remains to be seen whether he deserves a page. High society pastor, stayed in all the social status spots (Saratoga, Nantucket). Let me work on it for a few hours. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bad faith nomination from a new user whos first edits were this AfD. Bernier is the Canadian Foreign Minister, a senior Cabinet position. Polly (Parrot) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) a non-admin close.[reply]

Maxime Bernier

Unknown insignificant political figure. Of little relavence to Canadian politics Spainhereicome (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Hmm, an elected member of parliament, Minister of Industry and Minister of Foreign Affairs?[40] That seems sufficiently notable.—RJH (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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