Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 29

< February 28	March 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as unreferenced original research nancy ^(talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha friday[edit]

Unreferenced original research. More suited for an urban dictionary. — ERcheck (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not any smarter for having read that article. It doesn't actually say anything. Out with it. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aloha shirt. Most of this is discardable original research, apparently discussing a state of mind, but the phrase is sourceable to a 1966 marketing campaign by the Hawaii Fashion Guild (suggesting people wear, yes, Aloha shirts). It may have inspired casual Friday. --Dhartung | Talk 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. No redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember this -- it was the second part of a crossover episode (after "McGarrett in L.A.") involving Dragnet and Hawaii Five-O. Mandsford (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Chris, and also neologism, original research. Katr67 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first 20 Google hits were not for the term as used here. No WP:RS to try to establish NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to correct caps andDisambiguate to Aloha shirt, Dragnet and Hawaii Five-O, for obvious reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 08:41 5 March 2008 (GMT).

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOR. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the article is so incoherent I can't tell what it means. If it can be salvaged at all, then merge to aloha shirt; otherwise delete. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saucedo[edit]

He has a nice resume, but he is only a high school band teacher. Does not pass WP:BIO and only has a minor ref Only two pages link there. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Cut-and-paste copyvio of [1]. How'd this last almost two months on here? Blueboy 96 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COPYVIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - the character does not exist; the text has been copied from another article. Ckatz^chat _spy 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Pompeii[edit]

A non-notable Harry Potter character. Captain panda 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... who interestingly does not show up in the comprehensive List of Harry Potter characters. Hmmm. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It isn't a non-notable character, it's a very clear hoax. No such character appears in either the books or movies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate hoaxes. Deor (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's Neville Longbottom with the name switched. The old switcheroo.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I wonder why my search didn't come up with that. Tagged for speedy as pure vandalism (G3). Deor (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G11 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobiano (resort)[edit]

This doesn't seem all that notable. Also appears to be something of an advertisement. Captain panda 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear spam. Speedyable, in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
G11 as spam, so tagged. Doesn't seem to be a copyvio though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Street Dreams Pt.2[edit]

It is a mixtape that just shows a track list. No reviews, no sales, etc. DiverseMentality (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Fabolous discography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 23 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, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, third party citations. Who is it? Why is it notable? delete.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Politics. Currently a NN dicdef. Nothing to merge. Leave open for re-creation at another time. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political terminology[edit]

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Maybe redirect to Politics. Captain panda 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contents of article are essentially "political terminology is terminology used in politics". Not even sure it's a valid redirect candidate, as who would search for this when they meant "politics"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to technical terminology. It seems to be a parallel to e.g. medical terminology or scientific terminology (the latter a redirect). There might be an article here someday, but this is not helpful in its current state. (Or what about a soft redirect to Category:Political terms? Do we do that?) --Dhartung | Talk 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: the article does not teach me anything new. It isn't even a list of political terms. I see no need for a redirect either, unless an administrator proffers evidence that a significant number of people have typed it into the search box. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Define significant number. Even if the page receives one hit every few days, it means that people are looking for information, and in my view it is better to help the few by redirecting to where the information may be found than to leave them staring at a blank page, which may prompt them to create the article again, bringing us here again. Per a new shiny traffic statistics counter, this article received a couple of hits in December, January, and February, despite not being created until March, so people are looking for information on this term. -- saberwyn 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either soft redirect to Category:Political terms, or as a second choice just delete. The article in its current status has no meaningful content, and turning it into a List of political terms would violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I realize that cross-namespace redirects are considered undesirable, but a soft redirect to Category:Political terms might help users find what they were looking for. If that's not acceptable, the article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A classic example of an article that has nothing to say, and says it. Nice addition is that the terms are "mostly quite contextual to each society and political society". Very sophisticated. Mandsford (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what is the nominator asking for? a deletion, or a redirect? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I guess I didn't make that clear. I was thinking that either would work. Captain panda 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete um...I'm not shure there is any thing worth murging.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rollerz[edit]

I can find no reliable sources about this club. There are only a couple of hundred Google hits, not all of them about this group, but most of them either forums or the group's own website. Nothing in Google news. It was speedy deleted once, then undeleted after the article's creating editor applied at WP:DRV. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus, you may want to take another look at Google News. Now, the topic was brought up by Deb about the organization's "Notability". From the wiki-notability page, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." We have 4 outside news articles now. The organization has also been the subject of numerous news specials, as well. Such videos can be found on their page, http://holyrollerz.org/?view=media. The American Bible Society did a great interview, can a video be cited as a source for information? KKEI Radio did another great interview, also on the page. the SPEED Channel did an episode featuring them, and also listed is the exert from the movie R Generation where they were featured. My Wiki skills as limited, and I am working on improving them. This on-going struggle trying to meet Wiki's guidelines for a page is sure helping, but I need some help as well. Can videos linked from the organization's own web page, but preformed by notable outside sources be used in citation? Skiendog (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject. Unverifiable. Dgf32 (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and notability doesn't look so hot either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three related articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found with a quick Google News search [2] and added to the article. Also, I've pared down the advertorial nature of the article and while it could certainly use expansion and some re-writing, the group is notable and now has reliable secondary sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was me who speedied it, and I have to see that, as yet, I see no improvement in tone or content. As it stands, it's just an advert for a club. Deb (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Tone and content are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. The nominator's sole rationale was a lack of "reliable sources" and now the article has references from three distinct, relevant articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. - Dravecky (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed. help me improve the tone and content, please. I understand that the tone and content are not up to standards, and am hoping that you all can help. Here is another news article that feature information about the organization: http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4871027 Skiendog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki and redirect. I've got an account on Wikisource, so I've moved the text of the license over there. I have also redirected the page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nupedia Open Content License[edit]

Lack of content, mostly just a copy of the full text version of the license. Notability concerns have been given, and I agree that it's not of major interest of the world. _→AzaToth 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource, if its not already there. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. Fulltext documents like this are not really suitable for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki as above and redirect to Nupedia. --Merovingian (T, C) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor transwiki...fails WP:NOT--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairware[edit]

Contested prod, which also included a concern (now addressed) about a non-GFDL copyright by its creator. Neologism of no asserted notability. Looks like WP:MADEUP.

Delete as nom. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the "January 2008" thing is a coincidence. Not to mention the term's "inventors" are redlinked. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of this concept before but not in relation to software (usually music.) Mr Senseless (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. RossPatterson (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Adenuga[edit]

~~A completely unreferenced article about a living person is a WP:BLP violation since the information within it cannot be verified.~~ I have been unable to find any suitable reliable sources on which to base the article. It seems unlikely that the topic of the article is notable, there is no evidence of siginicant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject or that the they meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here suggests passage of WP:MUSIC and there is no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was linked to in the original AfD discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference to the article, although I don't think that two paragraphs constitutes the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability by WP:NN or the specific requirements listed in WP:MUSIC. Guest9999 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I deleted all peacocking from the article. Very little content left, nothing properly sourced. But I'll withhold my opinion as I've no clue about the genre. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations[edit]

Unnecessary and odd article that appears to be a break off from the main, except it combines awards from two series in one article. Buffy's already appear to be adequately covered in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), though any missing ones could easily be merged into the prose. Ditto Angel's awards. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Buffy article-- 500 different ones to choose from Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information back into the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Angel (TV series) articles, respectively Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And if possible, convert to prose so it's not such a huge visual object. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why convert to prose? Information like this is easier to digest in list form. And the (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. lists have the purpose. Trying to put something like this is prose will make it unreadable. Itcan be done, but it doesnt help. Encyclopedias have always had lists and tables--its a hallmark of their style. DGG (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/shrug. If it's not a good idea, then don't do it. That's why I qualified it with "if possible". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Buffy article is too long. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per everykingOo7565 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. It's not like it saved a lot of space, what with the summaries left in the main articles. Barring that, split into two subarticles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, or barring that, at least split into two separate articles. No reason to have the awards for the two shows listed in one article, even though one was a spin-off of the other. It wouldn't make sense to have a single article listing the awards of All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place, Gloria, 704 Hauser, Good Times, and Checking In all on one page, would it? Chuck (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the various ways of merging it on the proper place, which is not AfD. DGG (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep is a well-put together list although I'm not completely convinced that lists of awards that shows have received really is a great thing to include. However, given the length of the main article merger is not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep...make it a drop down within the parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify scope. The discussion above shows a clear consensus to retain the content in some form. The comments that the content is too long to merge into existing articles are appropriate. However, the concern over creating articles based on associated, but discrete, media properties is equally valid. May I suggest (that someone more familiar with the subjects than I take the lead in) converting this article into something like a "List of awards and nominations for media properties created by Joss Whedon." (That title is dreadful, but at least two of his creations have been both cinema and television properties.) Focusing on the creator (as I think has been done in other situations) addresses most of the concerns raised, and would probably be more useful to encyclopedia users than a more limited multi-subject list would be. I assume appropriate links would be placed in the article on Whedon and on the individual properties. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - editorial discussion, thus grossly inappropriate for AFD. Nominator needs to learn to edit articles rather than reach straight for AFD. Other nominations from this nominator need to be examined and possibly removed as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Angel (TV series) or expand and re-write for FLC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyking. --Oldak Quill 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Canley (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs[edit]

No matter how popular the series is, individual DVD releases are NOT notable. This is already adequately covered in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)#main article. As this isn't a retail site, there is no need for disc by disc contents. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectionion Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a spinout of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)#DVD releases. If this is a sub-article due to WP:SIZE limitations, notability doesn't apply. That said, Trim and merge into Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)#DVD releases or List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. I think the information about which disc each episode appears on could be cut. It wouldn't be too hard to summarize the special features in prose. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nowhere in WP:NN, WP:SIZE, WP:SPINOUT or WP:SS does it say that notability doesn't apply to sub-articles. Guest9999 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NNC says the contents of articles do not have to be notable, only the topic. If a sub-article is spunout due to size considerations, it follows that the contents of the sub-article will not necessarily be notable. Nowhere in WP:SUMMARY does it say that the sub-article has to establish notability apart from the parent article. To create a sub-article, the section just has to be be too long for the article it was in. It doesn't have to be too long and notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN says that "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles", there is no technical distinction between a so called sub-article and any other article. If article Y is spun out from article X then Y usually has to establish notability independently, if it can't it is likely that the original section was given undue weight in the article in the first place. Guest9999 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article series doesn't mention notability at all. Template:Main says "When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created." not "When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created for sections that are independently notable from the article topic." There are over 46,000 articles that link to {{main}} and I highly doubt their sub-articles all "establish" notability. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that a significant proportion of them will; all articles must have content that can be verified by citing reliable sources, the only real additional requirement of WP:NN is that some of those sources are independent of the subject. In most situations this is required anyway as means of verifying information. Most subjects which require significantly more than ~50kb of space have recieved the depth of coverage that ensure that any subarticles created are notable. Guest9999 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changing my stance on this, and I also think the temporary injunction may apply here. I think this is fine as a sub-article of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). There are several sub-articles like this, in Category:Television videos and DVDs (at the risk of WP:BEANS). I initially thought we should merge it back into Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), but there appears to be a precedent for this sort of thing. In addition to the articles in Category:Television videos and DVDs, there was no consensus to delete Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction does not apply here in any way shape or form. This is a completely unnecessary article, and I'd certainly hope that we aren't going to start going back on the current consensus that DVD articles are not notable (far bigger and more notable series have also had DVD articles either deleted or redirected). The far greater consensus is to delete these articles (but of course, we can't see those). All relevant DVD information is available in the main article. This sort of detail is nothing encouraged by the relevant MOS nor is it something the TV project encourages. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about television episodes and it was created before the injunction was enacted, so I believe the injunction applies. No article on Wikipedia is necessary — all information on Wikipedia must be present elsewhere first, so articles simply repeat information that's already available. The DVD information in the main article is a list of dates, which is basically trivia. I see SpongeBob SquarePants DVDs was deleted, but that article was not about DVDs of the complete series. I don't like the idea of having articles for every DVD release of a television show, which is why I initially argued to merge this back into the main article, but I changed my mind after looking through Category:Television videos and DVDs. If a section like this gets too long, I don't see anything wrong with turning it into a sub-article. --Pixelface (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see some mergeable bits in "Differences between versions" and "Collections", but I otherwise agree with nom. If no merge is performed as this time, I'd also go with a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Except for extremely minor trivia, this article is basically a reduced rehash of List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. If there's anything here about episode content that isn't already in that previous article, it could probably be merged in. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the individual releases aren't generally individually notable. That's why we combine them in a single article. That we have it separate from the main article is a matter of convenience, considering the size and format. Sub articles are made not because the topics are notable separately in all cases, but to keep the length and format reasonable. One of the major remaining technical limitations of being not paper is the need to keep the length of articles usable for those with slow connections. One of the advantages of being not paper is that we can retain the detailed information at least for the really major series. It does not look over-fanlike to find this here; it looks properly comprehensive. People want realworld information--here it is.DGG (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pixelface and DGG; this is just content for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), a notable topic. Per WP:SPINOUT, there is no requirement that this article be judged in total isolation, and per Wikipedia:Summary_style#References.2C_citations_and_external_links, the citations and sources for the main topic apply here; primary sources may be used for the remainder. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Everyking (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe | Talk 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olia Lialina[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable artist; makes a couple claims to notability but nothing that seems to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this one can be notable if expanded and cited, so I'm going to work on it. Coffee4me (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article expanded; notability established. Also see Internet art where she is specifically named, as far back as the 9/2003 revision, as being one of the early founders of this art form. Coffee4me (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - article expansion by Coffee4me seems to have done the trick. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The references added by Coffee4me help establish verifiability, but they don't make a very strong case for Wikipedia notability. However, "Olia Lialina" gets pretty impressive coverage on google scholar[3], and the hits there appear to support the position that she's an important figure in her field.--Kubigula (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after improvements made by Coffee4me asserting/solidifying the notability of the organization.--JForget 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Network[edit]

No claim of notability in article. Oo7565 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would appear to be some kind of government foundation in Scotland that deals with mental health issues in prisons. That strikes me as presumptively notable, not the sort of thing that generates conflict of interest issues, and ultimately sourceable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless it can be shown to have notability independent from the NHS. There are going to necessarily be lots of programs like this within a nationwide health agency and we aren't in the business of documenting all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 22 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, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is notable, having been chosen to host the 9th annual International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services in 2009. I expanded, cited, and copyedited the article, plus left notice at WikiProject Scotland regarding opportunity to comment on the afd nom article. Coffee4me (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Coffee4me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MacRusgail (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violanchelo[edit]

Non-notable low budget Mexican film that's only just been released (10 Feb 2008). No big names, no big studios, no big budgets nothing to demonstrate any notability. WebHamster 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the notability guidelines for films easily enough. The film is currently in distribution in both Mexico and the USA. My understanding is that Videocine is a major distributor in Mexico. The three mentioned actors have their own articles, and are therefore presumably notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

Keep, a quick google news search shows plenty of possibility of sourcing and improvement (they're in Spanish though). Wizardman 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cast of well-known actors. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Wizardman -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 29 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 early and DELETED as a copyvio and I am so sick of this Xenaphilic sockpuppet. But|seriously|folks 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Guide to the Xenaverse[edit]

Completely unnotable book. Already deleted once as creator copy/pasted the first from another website (and this looks like it may be the same thing, upon closer inspection. This is the source site: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/Xena/books.html which is another URL for http://www.vidiot.com/Contrib/Xena/books.html#official/). Another inappropriate article created by a very rabid Xena fan... Collectonian (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No delete Nothing is copied from that page you talked about, if you can tell me something I sem kopiral, I support the exclusion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, really. Jobjörn (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails books. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it could could probably be used as a citation in the Xena articles. --Pixelface (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and reads like an advertisement Coffeepusher (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercetel[edit]

Only claim to fame appears to be that they now do some work for NPR. Went through an uncontested speedy six days ago as CommerceTel but it appears to be back now. Also, while not strictly an argument for deletion, the sole contributor appears to have a conflict of interest [4] --Jaysweet (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 as fairly blatant spam, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per TenPoundHammer. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Could make an argument for this being a G4 as well as a G11. Either way, kill it quick. Blueboy 96 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not G4 if the previous deletion was speedy. That's a big part of why I started AfD in the first place, so that we get consensus and any other recreation attempts get an instant G4. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Abenzoar[edit]

Non-notable footballer, playing for Lyon reserves and youth football do not confer notability under WP:FOOTY/Notability or WP:ATHLETE which state that the player must have played at professional level.

(note: PROD tag was removed from Loïc Abenzoar, Romain Dedola and Jeremy Pied without explanation or any attempt to make the articles assert notability).

I am also nominating the following because none of the following Lyon youth team players have played at professional level:

-English peasant 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom as they all fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom BanRay 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following list of articles are being dealt with separately and do not form part of this AfD

Well, if that's the case. Then take care of these while you're at it.

Rodrigo Possebon PROD
James Chester PROD
Aidan Downes PROD
Max Grün PROD
Marco Stier PROD
Matthias Schwarz PROD
Michael Kokocinski PROD
Thomas Kraft PROD
Stefano Celozzi PROD
Georg Niedermeier PROD
Alexander Benede PROD
Timo Heinze PROD
Holger Badstuber PROD
Dean Bouzanis Sent to AfD
Troy Archibald-Henville PROD
Simon Dawkins PROD
Tommy Forecast PROD
Wesley Ngo Baheng PROD
~~Adam Watts~~ (Has played at professional level according to Soccerbase)
Eric Lichaj PROD
Adam McGurk PROD
David Bevan PROD
Danny Earls PROD
Erik Lund PROD
Andreas Weimann PROD
Robert Gucher PROD
Barry Bannan PROD
~~Jason Clive Lloyd~~ (Guyana international)
David Gbemie PROD
Nicky Riley PROD
Simon Ferry PROD
Luca Santonocito PROD
Paul Skinner PROD
Laurence Gaughan PROD
~~Daniel Lafferty~~ (Not footballer)
~~Charles Grant~~ (Not Footballer)

And there's alot more where that came from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaKid555 (talk • contribs)

I will go thorough them and PROD the ones that are clearly non-notable (most of them by the look of it). English peasant 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, lots of PRODs and 1 AfD, see Wikipedia:FOOTY#Nominations_for_deletion_and_page_moves, English peasant 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above, per nom. Can be re-created when/if they play at the professional level. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely no reason why not. You may want to double check with the WP:FOOTY/Notability guideline, but once you can scrounge 2 or 3 WP:reliable sources confirming that they are playing (not "will play in the future", not "maybe play") at professional level and can use them to cite the information in the article, you should have no dramas. -- saberwyn 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, wasn't that his point? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies. When I first looked at it I thought he/she/it was asking. -- saberwyn 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries, I don't think my comment was as clear as it might have been. We're all in the same boat TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources available to demonstrate notability; no pro appearances mean none of them pass WP:ATHLETE. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Stylez[edit]

Failed prod. Subject appears to be a DJ getting a start on his career, but not notable in WP terms. Google search for subject's name in quotes yields around 250 hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Unable to find independant treatment of any of subject's four songs, although they are available for download at certain sites. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not a DJ. I'm a registered artist and songwriter (ASCAP). I'm appearing in a new show piloted to MTV called "The Ultimate Guido" featuring Brett Broski from the popular "My New Haircut" video. You won't find "Carousel" my 2008 track yet because it has not yet leaked. As far as my other tracks, if you view my myspace page you can see how many hits I've had (substantially larger than the average person "starting out"). I have and am currently working with A-list producers (Freebass, Spliffington Management, and Cory Bold). I was on the Top 100 in "Top Artists" in Florida for months (myspace). The only reason I am not currently there, is because I have not released any new material yet (for months now). I have an interview featuring in Axis Magazine which releases in April (a popular magazine in Florida). I have fans that stretch primarily from New Jersey, New York, and Florida. My wikipedia was created not only as a marketing tool, but to keep my fans well informed of what is and will be happening. If in fact I have violated any terms, or have not provided enough information, I will do everything necessary to fix it. Please keep me informed.

Thanks, Mikey Stylez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.177.72 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can be a registered artist. any1 can pay for a producer or be friends with producers. anyone can have a couple fans.any1 can create an llc. to this kid a leaked song is when he leaks it himself. this kid has no evidence of being anything special. delete this page untill this wanna-be's name is on some records as part of the credits. if it ever is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.40.146 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.34.61 (talk) [reply]

Speedy Delete - self-admitted advertising, and no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I wasn't even the one who created this page. Second off, wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia used by many to find information. The information provided is currently up to date and valid. Whether or not someone classifies me as "special" should not subject the page to be deleted. If your so stuck on making sure wikipedia is full of only facts, stop accepting the opinions of others as valid statements. If you are really going to consider the opinions of people who obviously have nothing better to do than vandalize my page, then go ahead and delete it. To the ignorant person above me, you should not only do research about who I am and who I know, but you should worry about your own life and not mine. P.S. The person above me has vandalized my wikipedia page before from the UCF college campus, check his history. 76.26.177.72 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Mikey Stylez.[reply]

Comment I believe that Mikey Stylez is referring to anon, not Whpq. First, to the anon - your trolling is not welcome here. As has been pointed out you vandalized the page in question, and I suspect that closer will completely disregard your opinion. The fact that you and Antistylez1, assuming you're different people, obviously care enough to vandalize the page actually is an argument in favor of the subject's notability. In fact, I only came across the article because I was reverting vandalism there. Still, I don't think Mikey Stylez currently meets the guidelines for notability. If the page is deleted, I would suggest that Mikey Stylez or anyone else could ask the closing admin to undelete when reliable sources appear. It may well be that the magazine article and MTV story will be enough, but we generally don't try to look into the future and guess. Good luck. Xymmax (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above concerns--NAHID 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xymmax, I actually made a few phone calls regarding your comment as far as notability and proof. I asked the producer Cory Bold, to directly link me with his 2008 discography because like I have already stated, it is contracted already and confirmed for release. I start filming for the MTV show this saturday and obviously until it airs, I won't even mention it on here. I am just trying to avoid the deletion and re-creation of this page, as you obviously know that will not look professional for me at all. Anything you can think of to further prove and show my notability, I'm willing to do. Thanks, 76.26.177.72 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Mikey Stylez[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Being a registered songwriter (I'm one too) does not automatically satisfy WP:N, nor does appearing in a pilot of a TV show, having a myspace page, working with producers, or having an interview in a regional music magazine. Beyond that, this article illustrates 90% of the problem with Wikipedia. We are not a marketing tool, and anyone who uses us as a marketing tool is helping to destroy what once was a beautiful attempt at an open-source collection of all human knowledge. Unfortunately, 1000 articles like this are added every day, in a crass attempt to use a free, open-source, volunteer-edited online encyclopedia to advertise. I can't believe Jimbo would go along with this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW, obviously meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Dickinson[edit]

While AfD is not cleanup, this "article" reads like a resume, or at least a fan magazine entry. Its over-use of flowery adjectives, and so on lead me to believe that this was/is plagiarised from somewhere. If so, it needs deletion, and to be started over. - jc37 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - I agree that it's really awful, but she's eminently noteworthy and I don't know that deletion is the way to solve the problem. I'm happy to embark on a rewrite but it'll have to wait a little while. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject easily passes WP:BIO. As per nom, AfD is not cleanup. --Beloved Freak 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. If it is a copy-vio then it should be fixed, but a look at the history shows hundreds of edits over several years. I'm sure there must be salvagable info if it can be shown that theres some copy-vio issues and not just a style issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable actress. Use some cleanup tags next time. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To clarify, my concern isn't notability, it's copy-vio. - jc37 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read WP:COPYVIO. Bring it up on the talk page. Is there a reference or URL you believe the text comes from? --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can put {{copypaste}} and {{likeresume}} and {{peacock}} in the article if you'd like. You can find other cleanup templates at WP:TC. --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If copy-vio is shown conclusively, i'd still suggest stubbing and not a delete. No need to start over on the sections like filmography and the infobox imho.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Even if this is entirely a copy-vio, deletion is not the answer, given the subject's clear notability. Stubbing is far more appropriate. And, just to be clear, there shouldn't even be any stubification unless the article is found to be a copyright violation in its entirety. If only parts of it are copied, then only those parts should be deleted and possibly rewritten.TJRC (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nom even admits to using AfD for cleanup, which AfD is not. The subject is very clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no question that Dickinson is notable and meets the WP:BIO requirements. To the extent some parts are over-flowery, that's as much indicative that it was written by a fan, which is no big surprise. Bios of entertainers are often created and edited primarily by their fans. I'm not saying that shouldn't be corrected, but style alone is not a reasonable basis from which to infer plagiarism or copyright infringement. If there's some actual basis for infringement, that should be presented and addressed. This is a candidate for cleanup, not for deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course. —WWoods (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody wanna snowball close this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Do I really need to give a reason? AfD isn't for cleanup, even the nom admits this, and his reasons for even bringing this here are odd. She meets WP:BIO and yes, it does need cleanup, but the nom should be bold about that Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:53, 29 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 per CSD G3. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero: Job For A Cowboy[edit]

Appears to be copied from Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and just has the name changes, refs match Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. However there are a couple of google hits for the topic so not enough for a speedy personally. SGGH ^speak! 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) SGGH ^speak! 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a hoax made up to promote the band Job for a Cowboy, it's also proboble that the google hits you got were created after the Wikipedia article, thus making this complete bollox. Deathawk (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as vandalism/hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why is this categorised as Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)?? Please change! I'd change it myself but I only look at that one category so I'm not familiar with what others are available or appropriate. This sure ain't S&T though. Qwfp (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category moved to games or sports. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as per TenPoundHammer. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 No coverage on even the band's website. Total hoax. All ghits are to this Wikipedia page, and the only other one is a mention on a GameSpot Message Board about what bands users would like to see in Guitar Hero. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:39, 29 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, great improvements to the article during AFD demonstrate that clearly meets the main notaiblity criterion at WP:BIO of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brackman[edit]

"nn rookie league minor league player, drafted this year, very unlikely to reach the majors now that he had Tommy John surgery that early in his "career", no indepentent sources to meet WP:N" *ndsah; as written by Secret (talk · contribs) [5]. Anonymous user disagrees so I am listing it on AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the 2nd AFD, see the first one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew Brackman for more comments. MrPrada (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. First round draft pick, storied college career, the arm surgery is a story in and of itself as well. There are secondary sources up the wazoo for this, no need to delete, just to improve. MrPrada (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete– player doesn't seem to meet any of the project's notability guidelines at this time, although I believe that he eventually will. And for the record, he was selected late in the first round (30th overall in 32 first-round picks), so it's not like he was in the top two. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article must be worked on to add detail, but regardless, the majority of the first round draft picks have Wiki articles despite not yet having any MLB experience. Furthermore, the number of independent articles covering Brackman is quite large.BWH76 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)
Delete as nn. No Major League stats because no Major League appearances. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Minor league baseball is a professional baseball league which would satisfy WP:ATHLETE.BWH76 (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Comment - Brackman is also listed on the Yankees' 40 man roster, each member of which has a Wikipedia entry. I suspect (without checking each) that the players listed on every MLB team's 40 man roster has a Wiki entry.BWH76 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Minor league is not generally considered high enough. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Notability does not come from WP:ORG for individuals. He is notable because of the primary and secondary sources written about him, and meets all requirements for WP:BIO. Easy keep. MrPrada (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he's in the 40 man roster, and about 90% of all players drafted doesn't make the major leagues. Right now he's an injured rookie league pitcher, and players who are in the low minors are never notable, and there is prior consensus, yes there are a couple of sources but not much in secondary sources, like mlb.com is a primary source, and the rest just proves that he's a minor leaguer. Secret ^account 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of sources from the International Herald Tribune in France to the New York Times for both his football and baseball accomplishments, the surgery, the NC State years, the Yankees, and even this year's spring training: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Also the official 40-man roster lists Brackman so there is evidence. AfD should close per WP:SNOW. MrPrada (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the debate close per WP:SNOW? Not that this is a numbers game (it isn't), but currently there are three votes for delete and two for keep. It's still very much "up for grabs". Ksy92003 (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:SNOW is that if there is enough evidence to support a conclusion, the debate should be closed (i.e., if the vote is 7-1 "Keep", but the lone dissenter establishes that the article clearly fails BLP, the article is deleted per SNOW). It's not a policy or even a guideline, but I think the primary objections that he fails WP:N/V have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see enough evidence at this time to warrant a conclusion to the debate. For example, he hasn't met any of the notability guidelines (not requirements) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, and Brackman hasn't done anything significant media-wise (just the fact that he's listed on MLB.com or the Yankees website I don't think is enough as far as "significant media coverage" goes). Ksy92003 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few independent sources to show his "signficant media coverage": ESPN article about Brackman; Baseball America article about Brackman; CBS article about Brackman; Sports Illustrated article about Brackman. These are just a few that are specifically about him - I didn't include any that have only a few sentences or a paragraph on him. Furthermore, I once again say that this guy is a first-round draft pick and most of the first round draft picks over the past 8 years do have Wikipedia articles regardless of whether they made it to MLB. In other words, there is precedent for keeping this article.BWH76 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. ~~No evidence that he's on the 40 man roster? Perhaps checking the official site of the Yankees would clear this up - he's the second person listed.~~ Ooops - didn't see that this link was given above. Additionally, it might be of note to check out the previous AFD on this and other minor league baseball players, the result of which was Keep.BWH76 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a bunch of references and tried to improve the article itself. May warrant another look-see!BWH76 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you did a fantastic job. Well done. MrPrada (talk) 18:34, 26 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, MrPrada (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the odd case where he may well fail the notability sub-guidelines for athletes. However, you only look to those guidelines in cases in which the subject's notability can't be determined from the basic guidelines. In this case, as has been shown, the subject has received multiple, nontrivial mentions in reliable sources per the links provided by BWH76. He is notable, and the article should be kept. Xymmax (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second-team preseason All-American according to Baseball America. Players named to All-America teams, whether high school or college, are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tochar Cruachain-Bri-Ele[edit]

Can't find any reliable sources to confirm whether this event ever occurred. Tim! (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ghits are limited to wiki mirrors. I realise it happened way pre-internet, but I think there'd be some mention of it online if it were a real battle. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) change to keep per Mandsford's research confirming it existed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 13:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless some sources can be found. As the article stands, there is no strong evidence of the existence of this battle. Is it possible there is a spelling error/variation? --BelovedFreak 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per Mandsford, as long as these sources can be properly referenced in the article. Given that they are not in English, I found it difficult to verify that they actually mentioned the battle. (I believe they do, but proper citations in the article would help.) --Beloved Freak 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Beloved Freak 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annals of the Four Masters is a verifiable source for the information, see:this and this, maintained by the University College of Cork (Ireland) Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the excellent research of Mandsford. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fiodh an Atha[edit]

Unsourced article, too little context to establish if this actually happened. The link from Irish battles hints that it may have been in Ireland, but Ireland is not even mentioned in the article. Tim! (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable unless some sources can be found. As the article stands, there is no strong evidence of the existence of this battle. --BelovedFreak 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per Rbreen and Mandsford. --Beloved Freak 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some information; the battle certainly existed. I am not sure it is notable enough to have its own article though - perhaps it could be included in another article. --Rbreen (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annals of the Four Masters is a verifiable source for the information, see:this and this, maintained by the University College of Cork (Ireland) Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the excellent research of Mandsford. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devlin[edit]

Unsourced article, too little context to establish if this actually happened. The link from Irish battles hints that it may have been in Ireland, but Ireland is not even mentioned in the article. Tim! (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as unverifiable unless some sources can be found. As the article stands, there is no strong evidence of the existence of this battle. There are a few more ghits for "Delbhna Bethra", but nothing I can really make sense of. --BelovedFreak 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per Mandsford, sources need to be properly referenced in the article. Given that they are not in English, I found it difficult to verify that they actually mentioned the battle. (I believe they do, but proper citations in the article would help.)--Beloved Freak 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annals of the Four Masters is a verifiable source for the information, see:this and this, maintained by the University College of Cork (Ireland) Mandsford (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
undecided - Mandsford are you able to more specifically point out this one. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Existence seems to be confirmed. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exit2Dos has a good point; this is verifiable, although I'm having trouble verifying specific references to the Battle of Devlin in the online version of Four Masters, particularly since "Devlin" was also a name; looking at Delbhna Bethra finds something in the Irish version, but I haven't had time to find the equivalent in the English; it's somewhere in the 900s, which is how they list the Four Masters texts. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is confusing. The only Delbhna Bethra reference in the Annals of the Four Masters is to the death in 1001AD of the lord of Delbhna Bethra, a tribe in County Westmeath (see Delbhna). I am fairly sure Devlin is an error though, as Delbhna would usually be Anglicised as Delvin and there is indeed a town in Westmeath of that name: see Delvin. The AOTFM refers to a battle that took place in 1328: "M1328.26 The English sustained a great defeat from Mageoghegan, three thousand five hundred of them being slain in the contest, together with some of the Daltons, and the son of the Proud Knight." Clearly this is the battle referred to, though no location is given. Hayes, in the Ballads of Ireland (1855), glosses the ballad known as 'The Battle of Ardnocher' thus: "AD 1328, MacGeoghegan gave a great overthrow to the English, in which three thousand five hundred of them, together with the D'Altons, were slain. This battle, in which the English forces met such tremendous defeat, was fought near Mullingar, on the day before the feast of St. Laurence — namely, the 9th August. The Irish clans were commanded by William MacGeoghegan, Lord of Kenil Feacha, in Westmeath, comprising the present baronies of Aloycashel and Rathconrath. The English forces were commanded by Lord Thomas Butler, the Petits, Tuites, Nangles, Detainers, &c. The battle took place at the Hill of Ardnocher. — Annals of the Four Masters." Evidently this is the battle referred to - Delvin is near Mullingar (20km). I can find no reference to the battle being referred to as the Battle of Delvin, or Battle of Devlin, or Battle of Delbhna Bethra. No source was given for the original reference. Can I suggest the article be kept but moved to Battle of Ardnocher? --Rbreen (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - updating myself I find that Ardnocher is átha an urchair, now called Horseleap, but formerly Ardnocher, Ardnorcher, or Ardnurcher. The battle certainly took place; the only question is by what name it should be known. --Rbreen (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having looked into this in detail, I can see that the battle is clearly historical (I have added information and references); but assuming it is kept, I will move it to Ardnocher or Ardnorcher, as that is the name it appears to be best known under. --Rbreen (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is to say that some editorial work is required to treat the article, which does not appear likely to remain as a standalone piece of work. -Splash - tk 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Morgan[edit]

"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events [...] Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.", only one source,
"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.",
"Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. [...] particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions",
BLP for Mary and George: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist [...] When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems". -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:37z
Weak Keep - Argument about lack of additional sources isn't a strong one. [23][24], [25], [26]. Story did appear on a syndicated A&E program. In regard Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy I do not believe the article is sensationalizing these events. Nor are they presented in a tabloid manner. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week delete.~~ The BLP rationale is thin but so is WP:RS coverage. This is basically a homicide case one-event with an unusually long cold period. From the sources above, general interest was 1996-99 when the case was open and prosecuted. Beyond that Cold Case Files is special interest infotainment that actively seeks out these kinds of stories. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to "Cold Case Files" and re-purpose page per Orlady below. (change of vote) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of a consensus policy on crime articles, I prefer that they demonstrate some significance beyond merely being news (or in this case, unsolved). If the bar is that low we would have thousands upon thousands of criminal victims, bordering on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This case is not 'unsolved'. The mother was charged with man slaughter and sentenced to 5 years in prison. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is unique case that demonstrates the potential of cold cases. ۝ ۞ ░ 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content of article into Cold Case Files. It's an article about half of one episode of that TV show, so the content would fit well in an article about the show. (I linked to this article from the Cold Case Files article.) Additionally, convert Michelle Morgan into a disambiguation page. It turns out that there is ~~an American~~ a Canadian actress by that name (spelled "Michelle", with 2 "L"s); when the actress is named in other articles, some of those other articles have erroneously linked to this one. The disambiguation page should link to (1) Michèle Morgan, (2) the Cold Case Files article, and (3) a stub article (to be created) for the two-"L" actress. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Michelle Morgan (actress). IMDB had several listings for people by that name, and I find that at least one article points to the nonexistent Michelle Morgan (American actress). --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above Merge recco. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree that the subject of the article, as currently framed, is probably not sufficient to support a stand-alone article, I dislike the idea of simple deletion. To me, the genuinely noteworthy aspect of the events discussed is not the reference to a television program, but the unusual manner of the detection and reopening of the case of a serial child abuser and child killer, leading to eventual apprehension, conviction, and punishment. Perhaps the article creator could use his/her research to develop an article focused on the case and the perpetrator, which would appear to me to be the normal approach for this encyclopedia. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ataru and BlueLotas. --Oldak Quill 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faxrush[edit]

This survived an AfD almost three years ago, when the software was new and in the news. However ghits!notability and press releases are not RS coverage. There;s no evidence of notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:42z
Delete - unable to establish any reliable sources. Only things that could be found are press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, unreferenced advertising. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely qualifies as a stub article. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in published sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Faxrush . Independent sources seem to be available. --Oldak Quill 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial coverage does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Shah[edit]

Procedural listing, per result of deletion review. The original concern, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Shah, was that the subject isn't notable. A number of potential sources were raised at the DRV and should be examined for reliability. In addition, at the DRV a concern was raised that the article was self-posted. I am neutral. Mango juice^talk 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Whoever posted it, his career is notable as a leading Indian homeopath administrator. On the other hand, I am not impressed by a professorship at "Pioneer University, which is apparently [27] "The first open University for Homeopathy and other Complementary Medicines", which claims to be accredited by the " President of the Grand Council of the SBC Antico Principato Di Seborga, Europe" whomever they may be. [28] and is claimed to be " located in the Principality of Wales, UK", but without any discernible mailing address--except ones for their accountant and their lawyer. the degree course is is head of has an interesting abbreviation "MD Hom" is not an M.D. in homeopathic medicine, but a "Master Degree in Homeopathic Medicine". I have seen no information about whether this school is even recognized by the UK homeopathic profession. DGG (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for retention per WP:PROF & the assertions seem guffy & suspect. Eusebeus (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to bureaucracy! Keep - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable, independent sources available (his work is published in literature, mentioned in The Times of India, information in published sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Jawahar+Shah%22 ). --Oldak Quill 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Esteffect (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveball[edit]

Failed Prod. Non notable game. As per the article, created on Jan 29, 2008 in Seaford Christian Academy by five people mentioned in the article. Welt^anschaunng 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:44z
Speedy Delete as Something Made Up in School One Day with No Assertion of Notability. DarkAudit (talk) 21:46, 29 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 both consensus and the author's request below (G7). Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMPACT-Charlottesville[edit]

Non-notable, no references to support notability ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete minimal coverage in WP:RS; local notability at best. JJL (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been fixed, or are in the process of being fixed. As for notability, how do you define that? The Sea People are not considered "notable" by most of America, but yet they have an extensive article. Community service (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's easy, for WP purposes it's in WP:N and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) – ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course Wikipedia is not a US only encyclopedia... – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, by most of the "world."Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for notability, I'll try to make it more evident it meets the required guidelines. Thanks! Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me know what else I can do if it still doesn't meet the criteria.Community service (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability made in the article—at least, nothing that would mean any notability beyond the local level. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I quote "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have several articles from independent sources. As a developing organization, there is by no means a plethora of information. But nonetheless, I do provide reputable, third party sources. What is the problem? Community service (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, no where in Wikipedia's definition of Notable is there anything about a criteria pertaining to whether or not an entry refers to something "local." I understand there is a serious attitude taken toward the preservation of professionalism and dignity. But I am obviously not taking this process lightly. Community service (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the admin who had it speedy deleted, then reverted on the basis that it could be improved upon (per discussion at my talk page), I haven't seen much improvement upon assertion outside of a very limited geographical area -- or in general. This is content that is better suited on an individual web-site, not Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based upon the deletion !votes citing the non-existant 'Local' clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but there is WP:LOCAL. DarkAudit (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What has that got to do with 'Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together' ? WP:LOCAL specifically deals only with places. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - O.k. so I gave wikipedia a fair shot. But all that has happened is I have been stonewalled at every single turn. So, as the writer of this article, I would appreciate if you would remove it. I would like to be able to know I have not contributed to sycophantic "public encyclopedia" that claims to offer a chance to everyone to document worthy entries so that the public can appreciate them. Also, I would suggest to all of the administrators to stop spending so much time on their computers. Life is really too short to spend in front of a computer screen criticizing other people's work. Community service (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may not be local guidelines , but there is WP:ORG which covers local orgs well, and this one doesn't meet the RS coverage, specifically "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." That's of course apart from the article-cide committed above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

602LAN SUITE Groupware[edit]

Contested prod. All references are self-published. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added external references Brandonsturgeon (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks very spammy, no hits on Google News, all sources are either self published or leads to place where we can download software. Fails WP:N Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is blatant spam, it doesn't read entirely like an advertisement and independent sources were recently added. Notwithstanding, the article doesn't make any assertion of notability, and the lack of Ghits makes me believe that this is not notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam about non-notable software from non-notable company placed on Wikipedia by an employee of the company (a simple search on their site will show a Brandon Sturgeon). Maybe even speedy as blatant advertising. In addition all the "references" supplied seem to be nothing more than press releases, not proper third party coverage or mention. I can find no reason to recommend this as notable. Canterbury Tail talk 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks spammy to me -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Mayalld (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had it tagged as G11, but that was declined by an admin, so I had to go through prod which was contested, then this AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as AFD started by banned user. Will ^(talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth rivers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list, serves no sueful purpose, not notable Cholga^talK! 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nomCholga^talK! 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say the purpose of the list would be both information and navigation as per WP:LIST. Also as to notability Tolkiens Middle-earth has been written about extensively.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list clearly fits under policy on stand-alone lists. It organizes articles on the subject so a person trying to get more information could have an easy list of wikiarticles, rather than trying to scour for each article individually.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems useful and quite notable, given how notable Middle-earth is. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, Wikipedia does have lists, and guidelines on how to write them. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:CLS by being organized and informational. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, "Wikipedia is not a list" is not a valid argument to nominate an article for deletion. Wikipedia is not an article either. 96T (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't quite call this cruft, it passes WP:CLS, but highly specialized fictional "in-universe" information such as this isn't encyclopedic, and belongs on a Fansite or an LotR themed Wiki. Middle Earth in it of itself definitely notable, but in my opinion this goes a little far. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it satisfies CLS -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Legendarium is so huge that you need lists like this to not overload the main articles. As for notability, we can use Atlas of Middle-Earth for a start Will ^(talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very useful as information structure. Eithin (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, even minor Middle-Earth stuff has recieved lots of indepentent coverage, just look at the high number of unoffical Tolkien encyclopedias out there. The Complete Guide to Middle-earth is one example, and it has entries for many (if not all) of these rivers. 96T (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[29] Wikidemo (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, regardless of whether the nominator has been blocked there is still a strong consensus for deletion due to the lack of reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasper[edit]

Orphaned since 2007, does not assert notability, is unreferneced, has one link, nn subject, OR issues Cholga^talK! 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nomCholga^talK! 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, third party sources are lacking and I can't find any.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand most of the text above, all jargon (eg I don't know wtf "HisSpaceResearch" or "OR issues" are supposed to mean) but I agree that Yasper isn't very notable. Personally I strongly disagree with the notability criterion, and the need for proof and references; it raises the bar too much, it keeps people like me who most of the time only have 15 minutes to write something from contributing to Wikipedia. Everything2 made the same mistake. Rp (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "OR issues" means that the person above thinks the page violates Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. "HisSpaceResearch" is the username of the person making the comment just above yours, just like yours is user:Rp. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk)
Speedy close. Nominator is indefinitely blocked as the sock puppet of a banned user. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the original nomination was in bad faith, others have opined in good faith in agreement with the nomination. This discussion is no longer eligible for early closure. Let the discussion continue. Rossami (talk)
Delete per my comment on the Afd talk page. ArcAngel (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too have failed to find any independent, reliable sources for this topic. Nor do I find any evidence that the subject meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria for products. While I sympathize with user:Rp's concern that we should not delete stubs prematurely, the history shows that this page sat essentially unexpanded since May 2005. The fact that no on has been able to find reliable sources in all that time suggests that sources probably do not exist. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia Bank Tower[edit]

Article with minimal content for non-notable 12-story office building in Lafayette, Louisiana. No sources included or found in search. Prod contested without reason given. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be one of the taller buildings in Lafayette. It seems like a good place to take weather photos from. See http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880212014 (a photo with the caption "Storm clouds are seen approaching Lafayette from the northwest this afternoon in this view from the Iberia Bank Tower."). --Eastmain (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal ghits and nothing of substance suggest non-notability. The article is basically just an infobox, and I don't see much scope for expansion. PC78 (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but incidental hits in GNews Archive. It's the fourth tallest in Lafayette[30], the 211th most populous city in the United States, which is not saying much. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think this would be considered a really tall building even in Lafayette, Louisiana. Mandsford (talk) 22:38, 29 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) 10:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kha'ak[edit]

Short: fictional races fail WP:GAMECRUFT. Long: the subject of this article has not received any significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable third party publications. User:Krator (t c) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources demonstrating real-world notability, gameguide. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no notability, and looks like mostly original research by players. Please make it go away; this is an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to 2008 in home video. Will ^(talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD releases for 2008[edit]

This article had a proposed deletion tag on it, however someone objected to the deletion on the talk page of the article, making the deletion controversial, so I brought it to AfD. Essentially this article is just a list of DVDs released in 2008. No references are given, there isn't even an encyclopedia article here. The article violates WP:DIRECTORY, and fails WP:V and WP:RS. There is no need for this article in Wikipedia, if someone wants this info they'll get an ACCURATE list at IMDb. -- Atama ^chat 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's already an article for this, thus its redundant. Also, this is mostly WP:OR (the other article isn't) Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 in home video. Think outside the box 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect honestly do you have to put this up for deletion? A simple redirect to the other article is in order.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected. Feel free to close this AfD, I don't know how. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:19, 29 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) 10:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katta[edit]

Short: fictional races fail WP:GAMECRUFT. Long: the subject of this article has not received any significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable third party publications. User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Krator (t c) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GameCruft, indeed. I didn't see any insignificant coverage cited, either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie and the Diamond Castle[edit]

Disputed prod. This LOOKS well sourced but the cites lead nowhere. The Barbie website doesn't list this film, the Hollywood Reporter article doesn't cite it by name, and all I can find on Amazon is a sticker book. The dolls apparently exist, or will exist, but the film is not mentioned in connection with them. The official Universal Studios site doesn't list this as a forthcoming film. Doesn't meet verifiability policy, probably WP:NOT#CRYSTAL or WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability guidelines and WP:NFF - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I listed this, I kept searching and found this reference on the Target website to an upcoming film, here. (The first couple of pages of Google citations were for a sticker book and a storybook.) I'm less confident in this proposal now but will let others have their say, and apologize if I've wasted anyone's time. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the need for deletion then appears to depend on this part of WP:NFF

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines.

I will reconsider my vote to delete on this basis -Fritzpoll (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While we generally discourage not-yet-released stuff, this one is far enough along that it's already on some retail websites and supporting items (such as storybooks) are already out. Every film in this series has been on a national best seller chart. It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to believe this one will be also. Just like it is reasonable to assume that the next Harry Potter or Disney movie will be notable. That being said... we probably aren't likely to see reviews for several months, so if this is deleted please don't mark it permanent as it will certainly be worthy of an article at some point. Frog47 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the movie may not be released yet, but they're already announcing books and toys for the thing. So I'd say this makes the production notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devil's Advocate's arguments. A1octopus (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been promoted by toys and books, I'd say that makes it notable. Izzy007 Talk 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change of opinion, given the references discovered since my last writing - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as their arguments are more solid then the other camp--JForget 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood Magazine[edit]

Unremarkable publication; article does not cite significance. richi (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In such instances, it is better to tag so that editors can improve the article and add notability first, rather than jumping straight in and nominating what is otherwise a perfectly standard, albeit unreferenced, article; in any case, this is a national magazine by a well-known publisher about a well-known UK subject, with (a potentially citable) US edition coming. Stephenb (Talk) 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar notability to Doctor Who Magazine. Think outside the box 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Magazine publisher is Titan Magazines (closley associated with Titan Books) known for many other sci-fi television and movie focused publications, such as Stargate SG-1, Farscape, The X-Files etc. While the magazine is still young, the Torchwood franchise is notably intertwined with the Dr. Who Universe. Outside of the UK, Torchwood is now airing on BBC America, and this magazine is available on the US section of the titans magazine websites [31]. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - doesn't assert notability.-- TreasuryTagtalkcontribs 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about being the sole publication for licensed Torchwood Comics? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be notable for being the sole source of Exit2DOS Doodles? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how large your international fan base of said doodles is! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough magazine that appears on the magazine shelves nationwide in the UK for sale to the general public. Canterbury Tail talk 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - Although I believe this will eventually be notable and deserve a Article, I do not feel that currently, after 1 issue, the magazine has established notability. May I suggest that the current Article be userfied to the creating editors user-space. Once the magazine has been able to establish itself in the marketplace, had notable editors, contributors &/or columns, shown that it is not a 'one off', been Cited as a 'source' of information or won a award, this Article would stand a better chance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Torchwood until it is more notable - not many issues out just now, but when more come, we can make the article better. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is more of a stub until the magazine inevitably settles into a more regular set of features like Doctor Who Magazine has. As it stands, the page cannot be expanded much more with only two issues. The third, due out March 20, will certainly provide us with enough grounding to make a page with a similar grounding to the DWM page. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Commas are not merely decorative. The arbcom injunction does not apply here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artis O. Peavey[edit]

Prod tag removed by another editor, although I should have explained my reasoning a little better. This is a non-notable character who is so minor that he doesn't even warrant mentioning in the suggested merge target. In fact, the only Fried Green Tomatoes article linking to this one is the movie, and then it's only telling us that the character was cut out of the screenplay. Biography is drawing from the main source, but it borders on an original research summary, and certainly has no reliable third party sources demonstrating notability. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character in FGT book. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:13, 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 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the injunction, at least until the Arbitration Committee rules in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument - The injunction is temporary, and doesn't affect AfD arguments, just when and if an AfD can be closed. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (once the injunction is lifted) - It's naught but plot summary about a character specific to one barely notable work with no sources that even hint at notability. Delete. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The almost-orphaned state, the lack of any kind of non-primary sources and the age of the merge proposal certainly don't help. ~~But it seems the injunction does not really apply. He is a character in a novel, not in a TV show.~~ (edit: depends on the interpretation of the arbcom injunction). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and in the case of clear consensus at AfD, I don't think the conjunction applies. Eusebeus (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a character from a book, and not a television show, and so the injunction is not applicable here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment - the injunction is applicable it says: "This article about a fictional character or episode of a television series, is subject to a temporary injunction by the Arbitration Committee" EJF (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said I suppose it could be interpreted to only mean TV show characters, even so, better safe than sorry - the admins don't want a block from ArbCom. EJF (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there has yet to be a non-injunction related keep vote in over two weeks, would this not be a clear case of consensus? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the only option to admins to keep (if consensus) or to keep relisting until the RfArb runs its course. EJF (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominating in the face of an ArbCom injunction shows severely defective judgement on the part of the nominator, despite their unquestionable good faith and sincerity - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I had been aware of this injunction beforehand, then I wouldn't have done this nomination until it was lifted. Unfortunately, not everyone knows everything about everything, myself included. I still stand by my observation that there are no actual keep votes, just people voting "keep in light of injunction", which doesn't bode well for this article, injunction or no. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article will be tagged, however. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adil shamoo[edit]

Merely an overly long bibliography. DarkAudit (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In its present form, it doesn't directly identify the individual, which could be considered in breach of CSD A1. However, I'm seeing coverage of a biochemist of this name, who seems likely to be the subject of this article. If the article creator (or someone else, possibly me but I'm going out now) were to bother to put in some context, I'd be inclined to say keep. --Sturm 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in a whole summary of his personal life and professional background, but it was deleted. I am reinserting. Adil Shamoo is my stepfather and I am fixing his entry as a favor to him. He has the rights to all the info on his University of Maryland page, and I am using that as a basis for the Wikipedia entry. Please don't delete before I have time to finish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I saw the deletion log where the other article was deleted as a copyright violation. If that is what you plan to post again, you had best clear it with admins so another editor doesn't come around and tag it again. As he is your stepfather, there are now WP:COI issues, although that is not grounds for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conflict of interest to merely post information. Look through the article. There is nothing subjective there. Content from bio has been added (with reference), and bibliogrpahy has been reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a direct copy-and-paste from the UMD site. That is a copyvio in most editor's eyes. That is not public domain or GPL'd material. Even though you claim that your stepfather "has all the rights" to that bio, I don't think it's going to pass muster. DarkAudit (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can rewrite the bio, but I need time. Please don't delete this page so fast again. I am moving as quickly as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Follow the instructions on the tag, but cases of copyright violation, however well meaning, are subject to speedy deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure what the specific reason for this nom was but he has been published enough to establish notability [32]. Article needs a lot of work but someone will adopt it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also stubbed the article while the creator reworks it so it will not be a copy violation and risk speedy deletion. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article had been deleted as a copyvio of the UMD page, and I saw that it had been recreated when I was looking at the deletion log. The page as it was then was just the bibliography with no context as to who the person was. The subsequent edit was a straight copy-and-paste from the UMD site. That was when I tagged it as the copyright violation. The claim that the subject "holds all rights" to that bio on the UMD site is not a sufficient statement to forgo deletion for a copyvio. It's been changed since then, but has there been an admin action since the tag was placed? The tag explicitly states not to edit the page until then. DarkAudit (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there's still a copy of the UMD text in the page history. I've left the article creator some advice on the article talk page about releasing the text under the GFDL, which would clear up matters. --Sturm 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my reading of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, the article need only be listed if it has no clean revisions. We have a clean revision. This ought not to be an issue, so I've removed the tag. --Sturm 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad for removing the tag when I stubbed it. I reverted back to the revision that was tagged as I should not have edited per the tag. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, and I'm willing to put some effort in myself (tomorrow). But the guy has enough coverage that, to my mind, he passes relevant notability guidelines. --Sturm 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite There is certainly enough notability--his principle book on research ethics was published by OUP, and he has been very widely cited. DGG (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adil Shamoo submitted GND FDL info to me by email. How do I send that to Wikipedia to prove we can use whatever we want? I also have a photo, to be added shortly. Melby19 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL release has been logged in OTRS. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is delete - and article does appear to be borderline spam. One interesting (confused?) nomination other than the authors to keep discounted as non-assisting. --VS ^talk 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statoids[edit]

Non-notable website, borderline spam. See the Afd for the main term, which is looking like a re-direct. I see no point in re-directing this nn website or the following, which is pure OR and bundled for the same reasons:

List of statoid name changes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this website is used as a reference on plenty of Wikipedia articles. That, in itself, is evidence of its notability. Lexicon (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please not Lexicon is the article's creator. The website may be used but there's no evidence of its notability in RS coverage. Wikipedia links are not notability. It doesn't need an article here for the website to be used. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being considered reliable and being considered notable are two different things. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Travellingcari. —Nightstallion 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But Travellingcari didn't say "keep". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete- non-notable site. It doesn't matter if it's used on wikipedia, which is not WP:RS. There need to have been whole articles by proper newspapers written about the site itself. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious online[edit]

Contested prod. Still does not assert notability. Roleplayer (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside notability given. The only links are to the website itself and its MySpace page. I get no Google News hits. Fails WP:WEB Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable or independent sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have bloggers whove listened to the station and a free radio wiki to back what is said in our article. Even though these do not count I still urge you to give us time for the local press publication to appear. We are simply a community project who wished to be recognised within this encyclpeadia --Notoriousonline (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author even admits that local press publication has yet to appear. Maxa megalon 2000 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, bloggers aren't reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "wish to be recognized" is not a reason to keep an article about yourself but even one or two articles in reliable secondary sources would be. Absent those, notability cannot be established and the article should be deleted for now. If in the future this situation should change the article can be re-created and properly referenced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The addition during this discussion of properly cited information showing that this album placed on charts and earned platinum means it's notable, and most people have agreed. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% Hits: The Best of 2006[edit]

I do not know if I've done this right.I've nominated this article for deletion because it lacks notability. Best of compilation albums and anthologies aren't notable and their inclusion isn't of any encyclopedic value.Also this article is simply a list of what's on the album.Tjc (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You did it right. However, I don't see any references anywhere; the album's title only gets six hits. There seem to be other albums in this series that are equally non-notable, you might want to check those too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KEEP. "Best of" albums and anthologies can be notable. While it may not have the status of the multi-platinum selling series So Fresh in Australia, this one was the #14 compilation album in Australia in 2006 and was platinum certified [33], which may make it notable under WP: MUSIC. Of course, the article can definitely use expanding. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I agree with Wolfer68. This album is quite notable, in that it has won awards, and each So Fresh album has an article, and these albums have similar notability within Australia. However, I do see that it need significant expanding. I would prefer this article to be kept, and noted for expansion, rather than deletion. While it does not have much information so far, it does do what it is supposed to do

...album pages so users can get the basic information fast, creating high-quality new pages, ensuring a standardized format and make articles as informative as possible.

In my opinion, this article lets users get the basic information about the CD fast, and therefore should be kept. Adammw (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chronology. Widely available music cd range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisMunkey (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per Adammw. Notable album (charted #14 in Australia and certified platinum). Europe22 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the album has charted and been certified platinum it undoubtedly is notable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to assert notability. Biruitorul (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article itself might fail to assert notability, but this discussion determines whether or not something meets the criteria per WP:MUSIC. As noted above, it does. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should be asserted within a particular article, not its deletion debate. Biruitorul (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - failure to assert notability shouldn't be grounds for deletion though; such assertion should just be encouraged to be added to the article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has been going on since February 29; isn't it high time someone did that? Biruitorul (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.——Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so keep for now. It is a well-sourced stub about a notable and controversial topic. The delete votes, while more numerous, appear to be arguments about content, not WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recession of 2008[edit]

According to the definition of a recession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

"In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year."

As of 2/28/08, there is no "recession of 2008," nor any indication that one is imminent. This page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp19691 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2008

~~STRONG KEEP~~. The article has verifiable primary sources (BBC, Reuters, USA Today, Business Week and others) and fulfills the requirements of WP:REF for citing them. The reasoning behind this AfD borders on original research. It doesn't matter what one might think ... the sources say otherwise. Truthanado (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Discussion below convinces me that the article has merit and should be renamed. The Devil's Advocate's suggestion is a good one. Truthanado (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is clearly financial turmoil on the markets calling it a recession now is a little unwarranted. There may very be call for an article with this name in a half a year or so, but having this page now is jumping the gun really. Alberon (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but possible merge as I'll get to in a moment) as premature because those sources are still speculating. A recession doesn't occur until an official announcement of same is made. However, before deleting I recommend checking to see if the sources can be added to another article as I do believe there is already an article on the economic uncertainty. A subsection of that article saying "Media speculation in January-February 2008 is rife that a recession had begun" would be appropriate. I've read opinion that the recession started last fall, too, so to say it started in January 2008 actually borders on POV and OR. And there's already one media source (CNN Headline News' commentator Glenn Beck) on record speculating this could actually end up being a depression. So to label it a recession is probably premature at this stage which would then bring in WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Controversy over whether the recession of 2008 is valid or not should be included on the page, but it's a notable concept that is useful to be able to look up.Jgebis (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's all speculative, and we won't know if it's a recession until it's over (if it ever occured at all). --TBC !?! 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to say delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We’re scarcely 2 months into 2008, after all. —Travis ^talk 17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This should probably be renamed to something more appropriate. We have an article for the The Chinese Correction which was just a huge stock market plunge, the events so far this year certainly demand some article since it led to legislation we have an article on, which was intended precisely to deter a recession.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is still a matter of debate as evidenced by reading the newspaper. JJL (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:CRYSTAL, and considering its still March... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation at this point. Current economic trends can be duly noted in the appropriate articles, but we can't call something a recession until it actually happens. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller Mr Senseless (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative - CRYSTAL -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article can't be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL because it is not about a future event or speculation on a future event. The article instead says such a recession is already underway. The article says we are in a recession not that we're gonna be in one and cites a report from a major banking company to verify it. This means the article suffers from POV, not speculation or original research. This article needs to be renamed to a more neutral title and expanded to cover the whole range of issues and opinions on whether it's a recession, slump, or depression. Everyone agrees there's a downturn. Something like economic downturn of 2008 might be suitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. There is definitely some sort of economic disturbance right now (that could lead to a recession), and whether it is a recession or not doesn't really justify a delete, it justifies a renaming of the article. Near-recessions like the ones we're definitely in are regular occurrences, but they're so far apart that each are quite notable. hateless 00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're two months in, not two quarters Will ^(talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone said, its a matter of debate among the sources. since these sources debating it includes essentially every news and financial source in the country (or the world), the question of whether it exists would be notable even if t=it turns out to be merely an unpleasant mirage. UFOs aren't notable because of being real, but because people talk about them. DGG (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We won't know if there's a recession until June, no? john k (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I may be allowed to add a second opinion... It seems wrong to delete an article that has valid sources that all say basically the same thing. This discussion is more about whether there is a recession than about whether the article should be deleted, which is the purpose of this discussion. I suggest, therefore, that renaming the article to something that doesn't contain the word recession is a reasonable thing to do. There is at least one suggestion for a new article name in the discussion above. Other suggestions would be welcome. I offer "Economic situation in 2008" or similar. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Scientology[edit]

Due to the application of an interpretation of Wikipedia policy on trademark images, this article has been badly damaged and should be removed. An article that talks about the symbols of Scientology, while not being able to show any of them is useless. AndroidCat (talk) 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any material about specific symbols can be incorporated into the specific articles describing the organizations that those logos represent. (E.g. Sea Org logo to Sea Org article, Church of Spiritual Technology logo to Church of Spiritual Technology article, etc.) Cirt (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with AndroidCat and Cirt, article looks chopy due to image deletion, and no need for cetralised location for this information.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This nomination seems motivated mostly by subjective frustrations with non-free image policies. I understand that frustration; and frankly, to the extent that it prevents an article such as this from showing the images it describes, I tend to agree it should change. This article, nevertheless, continues to describe and explain the several symbols in text. As such, it still has some value. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Scientology Symbolism. Notable subject which has enough content so that it doesn't need to be merged. Also, lack of free images shouldn't warrant a deletion.--TBC !?! 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and mildly interesting with some information. It would probably be better if written in paragraphs rather than as a table since, as was said, permission to use the images of the symbols was withheld. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. The verbal descriptions are lacking and there's just not enough to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Scientology. Information on the symbols of Scientology would be best suited there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information would be too trivial for the general article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is why I suggested above that bits of info on each individual logo be added to each relevant article, w/ examples given, above. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if articles already exist for what those symbols are used for then I agree as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do we have any comparable "Symbols of xyz" articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But there is a marked difference: the images used to depict the "symbols" in other articles, are typically all free-use images, most often from Wikimedia Commons, and not fair-use images. For example, Symbols of Lithuania, List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols, National symbols of Canada, there are more here. If you can find any that rely heavily on fair-use images, and/or any that rely heavily on primary, self-referential sources, I'd be interested to see them. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself based on a good idea, and implemented reasonably well, but it's too bad about the constant image deletions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a backwards way to organize this information. Follow fair use and write about the symbols in the articles on the sub-organizations. (Too bad that we can't rule these are public domain due to being millions of years old, predating all human history ....) --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it were just a gallery of images, the removal of the pictures would gut the article. However, there is an explanation narrative. I can understand that the images themselves aren't public domain, but I would think that you could simply post a link to somewhere else in the web that displays a particular symbol. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Smerdis of Tlön. Europe22 (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Eithin (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Religious symbolism is a notable topic, of which we have many articles on Wikipedia. Lest I be WP:WAXed, I say this only to point out that there seems to be a general consensus that the symbols of various religious organizations (and Scientology is certainly a notable religious organization) is suitable for inclusion. The nominator's point that we can't even show the symbols is unfortunately true, but there is enough to be gained by discussing them in text to provide some understanding of the symbols utilized. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Someone might have the question: "What are some of the symbols used by Scientology?" Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These symbols are "religious trademarks" which is an oxymoron. Those symbols are not free, in distinction to the symbols used in all real religions. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scientology is a very notable religious organization and people will come looking for as much information as possible. The symbols are described fairly well and I'd like to see more work being put into this portion of the article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dizfreak and Steve. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew LeDrew[edit]

SF / horror author of questioned notability; brought here as contested speedy, but also to discuss together with his books, listed below. Tikiwont (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No evidence that the author or his books have attracted any attention in the form of reviews or mentions in secondary sources. The books are essentially self-published (Engen Books is owned by Matthew LeDrew and has published nothing other than LeDrew's two books). The bio article is, I think, suitable for an A7 speedy, but there's unfortunately no speedy criterion for books. Deor (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the books aren't even available on Amazon (either US or CA). It takes work to verify with a source independent of the self-publisher that they even exist, let alone that they're notable. (And not, it's not unfortunate that there's no speedy criterion for books -- five days is fast enough, and gives editors who don't check wikipedia every single day a chance to find notability evidence.) Delete all until such time as the books get significant reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all until such time as the books get significant reviews. I submit that in my rush I may have added the Matthew LeDrew, Black Womb] and Transformations in Pain articles before they were notable and relevant. You make good points about the lack of reviews and notability of the book. I will hold off on posting these items to wikipedia until such a time that the author/books become more noteworthy. Thank you. —Thecrew2008 (talk) 29 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the creator of these pages has also created many other pages which all relate in some way to Iceberg Publishing - a self publisher?. Taking one of these at random as an example - The Almost Coup - no attempt is made at establishing notability, and google shows only 82 results, the first of which is the wikipedia entry. I suspect therefore that User:Thecrew2008 has a COI with Iceberg Publishing as these books seem unknown otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tam is basically self published as the Iceberg publishing website describes him as 'A founding partner in Iceberg Publishing' - ie. he publishes his own books, The only claim to notability on his wikipedia page is winning an award in high school, which I don't think passes WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:52, 29 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 WP:CSD A7 non-notable bio. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Stocker[edit]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why is this AfD? Should be speedy delete - not notable. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sign of notability is "he was known as a world known peace keeper". Because of this sign of notability, probably it is not a candidate of speedy. But the claim is unverifiable, so AfD is the right place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the edit history of the author. How could you possibly accept this "peace keeper" rubbish as a rational claim? WWGB (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, you are right here. I missed the author's edit history. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for sure. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:17, 29 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 per G11 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology/GlobalDataGrid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Technology/GlobalDataGrid

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also fails the business and the website notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam, vanity page, no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk)

Delete spammy and vanity -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 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 --JForget 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Amys[edit]

PROD contested. A 'new term' that is so new (article states "early months of 2008" having been created at the end of February) that it cannot be notable enough to be, say, included in the OED. A handful of examples of a journalistic phrase cannot be sufficient to warrant an article on the topic. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:N. This term is invented just at the end of 2007 (few months back). I think its notability is not established yet. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niaz. ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obscure neologism.--TBC !?! 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain for the time being. It isn't obscure and there's quite a bandwaggon building up around it. LymeRegis (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that suggests to me that it is not notable at the moment. If it continues to be used in the future, we can add an article about it then. That's why I propose deletion - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It can be resurrected if the epithet shows some staying power. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be evidence of widespread usage to establish this as a new term. As of yet, all we have are a few examples of usage in the press but no sources which cover the term itself. --Sturm 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Recreate if and when it catches on. I'm sure someone was once described as a "New Cyndi (Lauper)". JJL (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability unsure -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's a total neologism and is not a worthy topic of an encyclopedia article as the term itself has not received in-depth coverage, it has just been used. If it belongs anywhere, it's Urban Dictionary, and even then they tend more towards internet slang etc than media hype.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus to delete as failing notabilty requirement. nancy ^(talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyMobility[edit]

Non-notable technology company. There are 20 references on the page, not a single one meets our standards, it is a mixture of self-penned listings, directories and self-penned websites, they are a couple of sources that almost meet our standards but the mention of mymobility is so trivial as to fail as a source. I cannot find nothing that would suggest that better sources exist. Fredrick day (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. However, the parent company Centric Holdings Group does establish notability as shown here [34]. If and when the main group establishes an article here at Wikipedia, all for redirecting MyMobility at that time Shoessss | Chat 12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Notablity is not inherented - that means we might need an article on Centric Holdings Group and this gets a line on there. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centric Holdings Group is a publically listed company, so therefore it's financial data is publically available, as are details of the running of the company, shareholders, board of directors, etc. MyMobility is not publically listed, so none of that information will be available. Are we going to say a small company cannot be as notable as a large one? It also isn't fair to perform that search worldwide - you'll get literally tonnes of results which have no bearing. If those search results prove notability for Centric, then these search results prove notability for MyMobility. --GrahamDo (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to disagree GrahamDo, but the sources and references I supplied, with concern to Centric Holdings Group, are from second and third party informational sources i.e. Newspapers – News Broadcasts and other creditable – verifiable and reliable sources that give in-depth information. On the other hand, the sources you supplied for {{MyMobility]] are primarily short company news’s releases – information from the MyMobility web-site and information off the Centric Holdings Group web-site which is the parent company of MyMobility. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs, but a requirement for a claim to Notability is that the Company – Group – Individual etc, etc have received significant coverage in second and third party informational source. Hope this explains a little better my opinion to delete at this time. By they way, nice work on the SA Waste Holdings (Pty) Ltd. Shoessss | Chat 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I contest that this article fails to meet standards. First off, ITWeb is a completely independant news agency, which has published a case study about MyMobility's customers. Secondly, while some of the references are "self-penned" (References to people's personal profile pages and bloggs at MyGenius), and a few of them are off MyMobility's own website, all such references are substantiated as well by third parties. I absolutely fail to see why this article should not be included in wikipedia. It is not written in an overtly NPOV or advertising style IMO (And besides, if the complainant feels that it is, he should tag it as such), and it serves as evidence that mobile applications are growing in South Africa in general. --GrahamDo (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also relatively obvious that MyMobility is the only company in South Africa (At LEAST in Gauteng) that offers mobile line of business type applications and solutions. Without this company, searches for anything to do with mobility in South Africa only yield ringtones and games for mobile phones. :-/ --GrahamDo (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I find it very interesting. I didn't even know that places like this exist. We need more of these articles. Very well done!198.54.202.30 (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid ILIKEIT is not a policy based reason for keeping the article. However, it's a good think a south africian based IP was just hanging around to let us know such things! amazing indeed. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not appreciated. It's a coincidence. Deal. :p I'll play devil's advocate and say the above comment could be construed as ILIKEIT, and also "It's usefull". More people are using Wikipedia in addition to (Or even INSTEAD OF) Google as a primary source of information. MyMobility would come up if you searched for mobile software companies writing for Windows Mobile. It's definitely something people would want to know. Not that that's a reason in and of itself not to delete, but it's definitely worth considering. How'd you find the article anyway, Fredrick? You just sit around constantly refreshing "Recent changes" every 5 seconds? I would think ANY comments about the article's worthiness for inclusion should come from South African readers... Hmm, silly me. :p -GrahamDo (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I'm constantly poking around in Wikipedia. I'm still learning the ins and outs of this. So can I now help if I stumble onto something that's interesting to me? With coments like that Fredrick might just give new users a wrong idee about what this place is all about. Sorry if it's not good enough that my IP address are being displayed, but I see no need to register if I'm just reading through random articles. 198.54.202.30 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. They make mobile solutions - and I can't imagine what that would mean, except maybe a baking soda rocket. ("Solution" used in this sense is inherently non-neutral and an almost sure-fire guarantee that the article was written by somebody in marketing.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll fix it. Is that your only objection? -GrahamDo (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - have changed references to Solutions (Mind you, I could only find them on Stuart Jack & Clint Latour's profile blurb) to be more specific (Applications, hardware, devices, services). Change your vote, now? :-) -GrahamDo (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't think the business itself is notable, at least not from the references given in the version I read. But the quality of writing in business articles, and the removal of management and marketing-speak, have been particular concerns of mine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL check out the history of the MyMobility article. Fredrick is systematically tearing it apart! I really don't think that scrapping content which (in your opinion) does NOT establish notability helps to establish notability. Nor do I think it helps your cause to delete the article. It's just in incredibly bad faith. I honestly have never seen someone so passionate about NOT having something in Wikipedia! Anyone else starting to think this guy maybe works for a competitor of MyMobility, which feels threatened by having it listed in Wikipedia? ;-) You're just making an ass of yourself, dude! -GrahamDo (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it before - since they are based in South Africa and I am not - why would I give two hoots about the company? please keep your guesswork and slurs on my character to yourself, Personal attacks might lead to your account being blocked. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see:

1 The article was a stub, with two lines in it, when you decided (In the very same minute of me adding it), to nominate it for speedy deletion.

2 After I added {{hangon}}, you replaced it with {{prod}} and informed me I had 5 days to "bring it up to scratch" (Paraphrased - can't remember exact words; check the talk page).

3 As I added sections, you removed them as I added them.

4 I went to an administrator and complained on his talk page about your conduct, after which you left a message on MY talk page stating that you wouldn't touch the article again, but would check back in "a few weeks" and nominate it for deletion if you felt it still did not establish notability

5 Less than 24 hours after your "5 days" comment (Much less your "a few weeks" comment), and after I had indicated that I felt I had collected enough references, you started this nomination. Hardly "5 days", now is it (much less "a few weeks")?

6 You are now systematically removing entire paragraphs and sections from the article, simply because you believe those sections to be irrelevant, or even MORE simply because you don't believe said sections/paragraphs prove notability.

Either you have a personal reason (Outside of Wikipedia policy) for not wanting this specific article here, or YOU are embarking on a personal campaign against ME (And I've never met you before). I'm confused as to which it is. -GrahamDo (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable tech company as per freddy's nom. I'd also encourage other editors to stop attacking the nom of this article and concentrate on the facts. 193.35.134.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Voyage Communication[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable company attempting to spam its way into Wikipedia. The page was originally started on 6 May 2007 by User:Abir1975 - one of the founders of the company is stated as Abir Banerjee. A Google search (-Wikipedia) returns 12 hits, almost all being directory entries. There are no independent references via Google. The whole tone of the 'article' reeks of self-publicity, not surprising given that it is almost word-for-word the same as the company's website. The website reveals that the company has been involved in six events only, which hardly makes it a major player, and the apparent sponsorship by notable people does not, in itself, confer notability. In the absence of independent references, I feel this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with nominator. Could find no information on the company other than Wikipedia and mirror sites of Wikipedia. No hits at all on Google News. Article serves no purpose other than self-promotion. Shoessss | Chat 12:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search turns up almost nothing about the company, and given that the creator is likely the owner of the website, I'm pretty sure it's just self-promotion. Trvsdrlng (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If "it is almost word-for-word the same as the company's website," then this would appear to be a copyright violation, unless, as seems likely, the same creator made both texts, in which case the conflict of interest is apparent. In any case, it reads like blatant spam: its mission to provide top quality events that are run and planned with a commitment to excellence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 29 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. There is clear support to retain the article (now across two AfDs), and the policy basis for doing so seems sound enough. There is also agreement that it could use some editorial help, but that's not a reason to delete. -Splash - tk 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page is nothing but three reports "proving" that the subject exists. There have been no reliable sources put forward that discuss the subject. The previous AfD was in July 2006. Since then, the article has not been touched since November 2007, and before that, since February 2007. The article was kept so that it could undergo a clean-up and better sourcing - I think it's fair to say this isn't going to happen. Balkan Fever 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I understand the concerns of the nominator. But all good things take time :-), and this piece is a well researched article. In addition, there are Scholarly articles written on the subject as shown here [35]. Do most of the papers address Human Baiting with regards to mosquitoes, yes! But there are a few on the articles subject. Shoessss | Chat 12:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with things taking time, but this is overkill. Nothing has been added to the page since the last AfD. After all the arguments for keeping it, all anyone did was tag it. If you want to improve the article, go ahead, because it's clear no-one else will. Balkan Fever 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – LOL and yet another article to add to my list of things to do :-). Shoessss | Chat 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "Scholarly articles" to which you've linked deal in the subject as presented in the article. Are there other articles? --Sturm 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After several pages of googling I found little that didn't relate either to mosquito research or trace back to our article. It looks to me like pure OR. There were a few fugitive references by analogy but no evidence that a practice exists and is documented outside our pages. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's got OR perhaps, but aren't the book sources worth something?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content if necessary. There are no independent sources verifying that any such subject exists. Asserting that there is such a phenomenon, based on a few anecdotes stretched over a couple of centuries, is original research at its most tenuous. Having said that, the sourced material seems to be suitable for a page on dog-fighting or suchlike, so I have no objection to its being moved if an editor wants to do so. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting article and historically significant that depicts an encyclopedic topic. Plenty of third party sources cited including images of the events. Each one provides context on the subject. The sources included in the article are:
The Sporting Times circa 1807
In the Potteries
Fleig, D. (1996). History of Fighting Dogs. pg 119 - 124 T.F.H. Publications. ISBN 0-7938-0498-1
^Note 1 : Homan, M. (2000). A Complete History of Fighting Dogs. pg 101 - 104 Howell Book House Inc. ISBN 1-58245-128-1

Chessy999 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the citations don't give the impression that the term was used to describe the incidents as a class. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sourced, encyclopedic,interesting, meets WP:V and WP:N. Seem fine to me. BTW such historical topics will always fare badly in Google searches but the hard copy references do the job. BlueValour (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that human baiting is interesting, however the article is not encyclopedic, and it is not fine. The keep votes in the previous AfD were calling for improvement of the article, and this never happened. Unless you know that you are going to improve it, don't assume a random reader/editor will. Balkan Fever 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles need improvement, that does not mean they should be deleted. Chessy999 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been improved since it was first considered for deletion. Why should anyone assume it will be improved now?Balkan Fever 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally I do not see a need for much improvement in the article, it reads just fine, with plenty of information, citations and images. Chessy999 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Decent article with pics & refs, just because its a tad barbaric doesnt mean it should be suppressed Towel401 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no interest in "suppressing" anything. The article is by no means decent. As a reader, unacquainted with the subject, all the information I got from the article was: Human-bating is the baiting of humans. It has happened. Balkan Fever 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BalkanFever, you do not appear acquainted with the subject in the least. Chessy999 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The whole point of the article is to inform me (an uninformed reader), so that I can learn more about it. If an encyclopedia cannot do that, what is the point? Balkan Fever 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never know when somebody is going to improve it. and its a tad hard to find more references because the practice is so old. Towel401 (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in your comment above you advised us that you are acquainted with the subject of human-baiting, if so, then prove it by improving the article rather than attempting to have a good article deleted. Chessy999 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not acquainted with the subject. This article has failed in acquainting me with the subject. Since you want to keep it, you should improve it. Inform me, and other users who come across this page, what human-baiting is (other than the baiting of humans, which is implied by the name). If you don't want to improve it, and nobody else wants to improve it (as one can see from the edit history), then why should we keep an uninformative article that will be the same in one year's time, until it is proposed for deletion again, and you come back with the same arguments? Balkan Fever 11:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to The Cockfight: A Casebook, the Brummy/Physic incident led to England banning most forms of "baiting" from bears to badgers. The article is somewhat anecdotal and needs a rewrite. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am considering whether a broader article incorporating gladiatorial contests with animals and other things like Daniel (in the lions' den) might be a better approach. Among other things, if this was known by any contemporary name, it was not "human-baiting". --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article title Human-baiting is the correct name. It is the baiting of a human against a dog. Chessy999 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "baiting" means. The problem is this: Even if it's technically correct, if it's a term nobody has ever used, we should avoid it. WP:COMMONNAME. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look in the two books noted in the Reference section, human-baiting is the term used. In addition, the article name is consistent with the other baiting articles. Chessy999 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that the IP that notified BlueValour and Towel401 [36] (among others) is a sock of SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · block log), creator of the article. Balkan Fever 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is as may be but it in no way devalues my comment. I commented on the first AFD and have the page on my watchlist. When I got the 'friendly notice' I decided I better comment before I forgot but without it I would have commented anyway! BlueValour (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentTrue, it does not devalue your comment, I just think a user evading his ban should be looked into. Balkan Fever 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then Delete - This article reads well but I also doubt it necessitates it's own article now. The examples described didn't so much seem like examples of a sport class as much as isolated examples of rarely attempted and ridiculously dangerous feats of machismo. Not the sort of thing that typically ends up with a distinct title unless it becomes a fad, which this evidently never has. Suggest a merge of all useful material to bait (dogs) and then deletion. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to make the point that 'merge then delete' is not a valid action. If part of the content is merged then the history must be retained with a redirect for GFDL licensing considerations. BlueValour (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some sourcing already. It could use some improvement, but is certainly not dreadful. The practice has been verified. I believe that more sources can be found, but I was informed by the article as it is. In a nutshell, this was a seldom practiced spectator sport during the heydey of baiting exhibitions. What more needs to be said? Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brutalizer[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't appear to be any sources which say a "Jack Stone" was a character in something called "The Brutalizer" or even "Other Side of All". This appears to be an invention of the article creator; it certainly appears to fail verifiability. --Sturm 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A story that doesn't exist from a book that doesn't exist. Or at very least no sources to prove that it does. DarkAudit (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only Book of Reality I'm finding evidence for (aside from as an appelation of the Qu'ran) is book 9 of Diadem (series) by John Peel, but aside from the grammatically creative "magical mechanical" bit, the description from the article in no way matches up with that. Delete as unverified, let alone notable under WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 29 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 per CSD A7 by Starblind (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holytrinity (Anarchy Online)[edit]

Seems to be about a nonnotable player character in the online game Anarchy Online. A7 for people doesn't apply (not sure if this counts as "web content") Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 11:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it clearly fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:19, 29 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 --JForget 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Partners[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...and WP:NOR; and could be WP:COPYVIO as well, as it says it was published on Amazon.com. JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Clear case of OR. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ORish -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 29 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 --JForget 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto rock[edit]

Expired PROD, reason was "Neologism; no sources given", but a Google news search shows a number of independent references to the term suggesting that it may have notability. So I'm AfD'ing it because I think it needs discussion. Don't have an opinion myself. —SMALL JIM 11:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find these sources; what I do find is a few song titles and the like, but nothing at all that identifies a musical genre. As best I can determine, it's a almost-but-not-quite-utterly-meaningless tee shirt tag phrase. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is there little to no notability on this subject, but the rationale behind the creation of the article is highly suspect. The page was created by a user who only edited Wikipedia once and half of the original version of the page is spent hyping a band called Kongcrete, who don't seem notable at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence there is a standard usage of this term as a music genre. There are albums, songs, clothing brands, club nights etc which bear this name but don't appear to be culturally interlinked, and a couple of bands – DownsiiD (cross-genre rock, hip-hop, and soul), Oski Foundation (soul and R&B) – with relatively little in common have used it to describe their music. The latter part is a concern; it suggests there isn't an established genre. It's also interesting to note that no bands on Wikipedia are described as "ghetto rock" bands. --Sturm 09:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've already made comments on the talk page and in edit summaries. I'm not sure if I need say any more but throw my democratic weight behind the proposal.Munci (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's a copyvio from [37]. -Splash - tk 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Professional Coders[edit]

Delete no WP:RS, fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article asserts notability (65,000 members). A search shows hits of currently active chapters in several cities (for example, Kansas City chapter has a full calendar of events for 2008). JamesMLane t c 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While possibly important due to the national and international scope, actual Notability isn't shown by way of independent sources about the organization. What i found is mostly press releases. The article is orphaned, so maybe this should just be mentioned at Medical coder, the stub article about the profession related to Medical classification. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 29 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, —αlεx•mullεr 10:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is grossly inadequate. However, medical coding, although stupefyingly uninteresting even to most of those who must deal with it, is importnat in high-profile controversies, particularly with regard to disputes between health care consumers and insurers who dispute liability for services, but also with regard to service outsourcing. This credentialing organization apparently exists and has a significant membership. What remains are legitimate criticisms of article quality, which call for further work on, not removal of, the article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shine honesty[edit]

Not particularly notable as far as I can tell and is little more than a tracklisting, which is discouraged by WP:MUSIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - good luck with that. The fact is that almost no album deletion AfD ever succeeds, regardless of what WP:MUSIC says. (And when the AfD is closed, somebody needs to move the article to Shine Honesty with the capital 'H'.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a link to a dallas observer review and cleaned the article up a bit including links to wiki pages for the record label etc. agreed that the article should be titled with capital H Joe Wallace (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, I've asked on your talk page but not had a reply, so I'll ask again here: are you related to or friends with User:Cameron McCasland? You seem only to edit articles that mention him as a subject, as this one does. I'm worried that there may be a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I must have missed it. While I have met Cameron I would not say I know him. In the same way I have met president bush, roger clemens, etc. He is a member of several other boards including the Rondo Hatton original site. Again sorry for the tardiness of my reply. Joe Wallace (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - studio albums are usually considered notable if the band is/was notable. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 28 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 29 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 prejudice for recreation as appropriate redirect. GlassCobra 09:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Maoists[edit]

POV, and highly confusing, fork of Communist Party of India (Maoist). Soman (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman is not allowing others to Contribute. User:Soman is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. All refferences with pages have been provided. User:Sonam seems to be incooperative by nominating important articles and related articles which must be made. User fails to Understand Recent activties and Joint Operations which have been taken place recently. --TigersRus (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Comment by blocked sock puppet struck out at relist. Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Information seems to have enough Resources --ThambeEeE (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) !Vote by blocked sock puppet struck out at relist. Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Three other related AfDs and disruptions of the process are discussed at ANI. -- Soman (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the content. While on related subjects the two articles are obviously different. TigersRus's complaint also appear on the ANI page cited by Soman. He reverted against some one who removed an AFD tag, but that is the correct action. I have not seen what is happening to other articles such as Communist Party of India (Maoist), but it would be better if its editors made a habit of signing in before editing. If the complaint is that the article is inaccurate, it should be corrected. If it is a fork of Communist Party of India (Maoist), there might be a case for merging it back, but this one seems to be about a guerrilla organisation, not a clandestine politcial party. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no organisation called 'Indian Maoists'. A redirect to Communist Party of India (Maoist) is possible, but CPI(Maoist) are not the only Maoists in India. Indian Maoists could also redirect to Naxalite. My suggestion is to delete the article altogether, there's no info in it that isn't already available in CPI(Maoist) or Naxalite articles. also, TigersRus and ThambeEeE are sockpuppets. --Soman (talk) 21:06, 23 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plainly a POV fork. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because this article is almost word for word the same as the article on Communist Party of India (Maoist), except with a clear slant, was created and primarily edited by numerous sockpuppets of a blocked user, and this user removed the AfD on several occasions calling it "vandalism" so this is probably created solely to express a passionate view against the group, rather than giving any valid information. An article under the same name with a different subject might be legitimate, but this clearly is not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article appears to be merely about the Communist Party of India (Maoist), which already has an article. Of course, a broader article on the topic of Maoism in India should be written, but this is not that article. Everyking (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the existing article Naxalite broadly covers the subject 'Maoism in India'. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neighborhood, geo locations are notable and also the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption.--JForget 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point Isabel, Richmond, California[edit]

not a notable neighborhood, way too small Cholga^talK! 09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per me/nomCholga^talK! 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and speedy close - article is now adequately sourced. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[38] Wikidemo (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable about most neighborhoods, and particularly not this one. It has a big dog park and a Costco, which seems to mean it's a nice place to visit if you happen to take a wrong turn and somehow end up in Richmond, California. Although every neighborhood is special to someone, we already have way too many articles about unincorporated villages that people have fallen in love with. If throwing in all the neighborhoods in every city and town in the world is the next logical step in that process, the next step after that is to have articles about every street in Point Isabel. I'd wager that most people in Richmond, CA, don't care that much about Point Isabel either. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lets see the outcome/end-product of the suggested 3-Article Merge first. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close - nominator blocked indef. as sockpuppet. Bash Kash (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Highlands Elementary School[edit]

Elementary schools are not notable Cholga^talK! 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep given, e.g. a hit from the Oakland Tribune dated 17 April 1929 which appears to non-trivially discuss their architecture (but stuck behind a paywall). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first of all the nomination lacks any grounds on which to base deletion. Also, in addition to the source above, there are enough sources available to meet WP:N. Following the paralysis of a student caught up in a shooting the school has had significant media coverage, for instance here. Also there has been coverage of a book that the students published, for example here. Further, the school was a pilot for a new staff selection process here and the school has been the focus of efforts to encourage parents to keep their children within the public school system here. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan, sufficient notability has been demonstrated here. RFerreira (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some background at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This nomination may have been made in bad faith, but I don't see how the school passes WP:N or WP:ORG. I fail to see how an single article about routine building works at the school in 1929 constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". With all respect, TerriersFan is arguing that the school has inherited notability from events in which it only happened to be involved - the articles seem to state that the new hiring policies and ways of encouraging students to stay in the public system were being run out of higher levels of the education system, and I don't see why they're anything other than trivial anyway (education departments are always trialling new ways of doing things - I don't think that Oakland Unified School District principal selection process reforms deserves an article, so why should it be used to justify an article on one of the schools it was first used in?). --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but I see this argument as fundamentally flawed. Schools are the sum of their component parts i.e. premises+faculty+students=school. Consequently, references to the components are fully relevant to the whole. Each reference, for example the selection process, do not need to be individually notable only that there are multiple, reliable sources. I would add, by far the majority of elementary and middle schools are nn. If you look at my past recommendations you will find I generally !vote for a merge. However, this school has several interesting sources which is unusual and marks it apart from the majority. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems to be an argument that notability is inherited. Also, you're overlooking the 'significant coverage' part of WP:N. Brief references to the school in articles which are on other topics don't constitute 'signficant coverage' - the definition used for significant coverage is "that sources address the subject directly in detail". If the reference isn't clearly about the school then it shouldn't be counted towards establishing notability for the school. WP:NOT#NEWS also seems relevant as routine or minor stories in the media don't form sufficent basis for an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the sources used to establish notability should give significant coverage (a good amount of detail) about either the school as a whole or one or more important elements of the school. (That's how I interpret "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" from WP:N "General notability guideline") I wouldn't consider the article about the single third-grade classroom to be significant enough (but something about the entire third grade would be). I consider the article about the principal being selected as significant coverage (the article focused on the new principal). I've just added two more sources, both of which contribute significant coverage. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see it as a bad faith nomination, since Crocker Highlands is not as famous as, say, Crocker Bank or Crocker, Betty. However, it's clear that people have located and are continuing to locate information that sets Crocker Highlands apart from other elementary schools. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, school is not notable. Sources are not really about the school, and are of only local interest. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good effort, but there seems to be in the end nothing actually notable. There's a description of the building, and routine coverage by local papers of new principals, and a student at the school being a victim of a shooting somewhere else entirely. That's not enough for notability even in the area. DGG (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided, unusual for an elementary school, establish notability and satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reliable sources to establish a verifiable, NPOV, NOR article, which are the inclusion requirements. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nominator is indefinitely blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. I would endorse the speedy keep as well, but apparently there are a few folks who agree with the (now blocked) sockpuppet who originated this nomination. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has multiple, independent, reliable sources. Notability established. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoyah Heights, Oakland, California[edit]

Unreferenced, not notable Cholga^talK! 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as places are always notable on WP even if it is a small location, village or area. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note, this is a neighborhood, the article Oakland, California for the city, and East Oakland, Oakland, California for the division of said city already exist, this article is redundant and unnecessary.Cholga^talK! 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See a Google News archive search [39], which shows lots of coverage of the neighborhood. Satisfies WP:V and perhaps WP:N. Please check for the availability of references before nominating articles. Edison (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The status of numerous Oakland neighborhoods is currently a hot topic around here, with many articles on them proposed for deletion. As I've stated on a number of those articles' talk pages, I have proposed a guide to whether a neighborhood article should be included here or not. It's a web page maintained by the Oakland Museum of California which shows districts and neighborhoods in the city. Since this tool has been created by an official local institution that is credible, I believe it can serve as at least a starting point to determine inclusion. So far as Sequoyah Heights goes, it's one of the neighborhoods shown in the maps there, so that's a pretty good argument for its inclusion.

I'd also like to point out that this proposal for deletion comes from an editor currently under investigation for major sockpuppetry, and that this nomination was probably tit-for-tat retaliation on account of the many worthless articles created by, or contributed to, by this editor which have been deleted. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should be careful not to conflate "unreferenced" with "not notable" as this is not always the case. RFerreira (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Niaz -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Subject seems notable. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[40] Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seminary, Oakland, California[edit]

Unreferenced, not notable Cholga^talK! 09:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)...and speedy close. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[41] Wikidemo (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgemont, Oakland, California[edit]

unreferneced, non-notable Cholga^talK! 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)...and speedy close. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[42] Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood Gardens, Oakland, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

not notable, does not assert notability Cholga^talK! 09:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is subject of an open sockpuppetry investigation. The suspected puppeteer was blocked for disruptive editing to Oakland-related articles. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted for this neighborhood, sources are provided, and searches indicate substantial additional WP:RS coverage available for expansion. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millsmont, Oakland, California[edit]

nn unreferenced Cholga^talK! 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)...and speedy close. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[43] Wikidemo (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Heights, Oakland, California[edit]

unreferenced, dubious notability Cholga^talK! 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JWB (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)...and speedy close. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[44] Wikidemo (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep . Nomination was disruption by User:Cholga, a blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview, Oakland, California[edit]

not notable, unrefernced Cholga^talK! 09:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, clearly. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 29 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, nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California[edit]

~~Not notable, completely unreferenced~~ Cholga^talK! 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)-convinced to not deleteCholga^talK! 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news archive search shows 3200 results for "Crocker Highland," the vast majority about the article's subject. It is not required to actually have the references purchased through the paywall and used to improve the article ffor it to be kept. We only have to know that the subject is WP:V verifiable if it is a geographic feature, town, hamlet,or neighborhood, per the outcome of numerous prior AFDs. If multiple reliable and independent sources have substantial coverage of the neighborhood, that is even more rationale for keeping the article, by clearly satisfying WP:N. The caution in "neighborhood" articles would be if the term is not widely used in the media, guidebooks, etc, and is just something coined in the 'hood one day which hasn't yet caught on. That seems not to be the case here. [45](1999) has two paragraphs about homes in Crocker Highlands. [46] (2000) has substantial discussion of real estate in Crocker Highlands. Oakland Tribune, (May 13, 1919) from the Google News search says "If you are planning to some day live in Crocker Highlands by all means see us AT ONCE and get first choice, because the very lot you want might be the first ..." and shows the neighborhood has been in the news for many decades. Please do at least the minimal research of a Google News archive search before nominating an article as "not notable". The absence of references does not mean unreferenceable or non-notable. This whole flock of nominations of neighborhoods appears ill-founded and premature. Edison (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The status of numerous Oakland neighborhoods is currently a hot topic around here, with many articles on them proposed for deletion. As I've stated on a number of those articles' talk pages, I have proposed a guide to whether a neighborhood article should be included here or not. It's a web page maintained by the Oakland Museum of California which shows districts and neighborhoods in the city. Since this tool has been created by an official local institution that is credible, I believe it can serve as at least a starting point to determine inclusion. So far as Crocker Highlands goes, it's one of the neighborhoods shown in the maps there, so that's a pretty good argument for its inclusion.

I'd also like to point out that this proposal for deletion comes from an editor currently under investigation for major sockpuppetry, and that this nomination was probably tit-for-tat retaliation on account of the many worthless articles created by, or contributed to, by this editor which have been deleted. (I was the one who created this article.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ILike2BeAnonymous's convincing reasoning. TerriersFan (talk) 20:55, 29 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. Nomination was disruption by a blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, Oakland, California[edit]

Completely unreferenced, dubious notabaility Cholga^talK! 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search seems to point out that this location has a few buildings that notable historical figures have lived. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 10:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JWB (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a cursory search finds notable features. Jgebis (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above; subject does in fact appear to be notable. RFerreira (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 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 - disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimond District, Oakland, California[edit]

Unreferenced Cholga^talK! 09:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being unreferenced alone, does not mean an article should be deleted. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JWB (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)...and speedy close. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[47] Wikidemo (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's unreferenced, then someone else can add references and improve the article. Is this neighborhood at least as notable as the rest of Oakland's neighborhoods, then we can keep the article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 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 faithless (^speak) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Duffy[edit]

Not notable in her own right, only known for presenting quiz shows. No significant role in notable shows, doesn't appear to have a large fan base or significant following, and hasn't made a unique contribution to entertainment. As such fails the entertainer guidelines of WP:BIO Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lousy ministub on nn subj.Cholga^talK! 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no content, never had none. No prejudice against re-creation of this article in the future, if some reliable sources can be found which establish notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike DC[edit]

Appears to fail WP:NOTE: no indication of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. скоморохъ 09:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage. It's not released, so WP:CRYSTAL comes into play. It's a mod for a defunct console, so notability will take a hit there as well. DarkAudit (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally fails notability checks. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability criterion -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a completely non-notable game mod. Most game mods never get released, no reason to presume this one is any different. To presume it will be notable is crystal balling as it currently isn't. Plus the fact it's being pushed by the mods author and reads like an advert makes it eligible possible for a speedy as blatant advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natomas Charter School[edit]

Non notable school (WP:N), lousy written and formated and sourced "article" Cholga^talK! 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom/meCholga^talK! 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Natomas Unified School District per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per precedent and Terriersfan above. Why even list it here TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:49, 29 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 Natomas Unified School District. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy F. Greene Middle School[edit]

Non-notable (WP:N) school. Cholga^talK! 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom (me)Cholga^talK! 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Natomas Unified School District per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Terriers. The only time that grade school articles are tolerable is if they're part of a school project to introduce students to online research and writing, and if they get deleted after the lesson is over, they come back same time next year. Nothing here that can't be mentioned in the school district article Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Terriers. What little content that is found in these kind of articles should be combined into the school district's article. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll re-create it for the other band, though. GlassCobra 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powersurge[edit]

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC, bands only claim to fame is being 'The best band of the year 2007' tag of one DRockstar competition. Haven't released an album as per the article itself. Welt^anschaunng 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourced, if somthing found and is legit then keep.Cholga^talK! 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for notability back in October, and [48] since then. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good one Welt, I put this page on my watchlist and was going to AfD is today. You summed it up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well this certain band is not notable but may I suggest converting this page to the power metal band that is signed with Roadrunner Records with 3 studio releases? [49] −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that makes things interesting. May be the closing admin will make a note of this point, so that if this page is recreated for the US band then it may not be speedied. Welt^anschaunng 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro 2008 (video game)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Also question of WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the game has been announced by EA, and there are a decent amount of news articles on the game at Google News. hateless 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Announced by one of the world's biggest videogame publishers to coincide with the UEFA tournament, the announcement itself can be reliably sourced and it doesn't take Mystic Meg to predict that the game will start to be covered in next month's magazines and within the next few weeks on website. For the sake of a couple of weeks it might as well be left for contributors to work on as the sources pop up. Someone another 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. User:Krator (t c) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hateless, I agree that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply in this instance. RFerreira (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as hateless -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - title announced by a major game publisher. If this was a mod or the like by an unknown group then delete, but instead it is a major title announced by one of the world's largest computer game producers. Canterbury Tail talk 05:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the article is now well sourced, no longer failing our verifiability policies. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since the lack of reliable sources has not been addressed. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pussycat Dolls' second studio album[edit]

Entirely unverified speculation about a forthcoming album. There is no actual content here - not even an album title to give the article its proper name. The supposed confirmation that the album will even exist is a blog entry "p.s. I asked Santa for another PCD album and I think he's gonna make it happen in 08!! ;) Lots of love, Ash". Article was PRODded and this was endorsed by another editor but then the tags were removed by another editor citing Ignore All Rules so we have no actual justification for keeping the article; rather than ignore all rules myself and put the PROD tags back I am bringing it here. Ros0709 (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn album does not even existCholga^talK! 09:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable at this point in time. Maybe the Pussy Cat Dolls will release a second album (I personally hope not), but once information regarding the album's title, specific release date, AND tracklist/major singles can be confirmed through the use of WP:reliable sources independant of the group, their management, or the record company. -- saberwyn 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced. Hopefully there really won't be a second PCD album. - eo (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above reasons. ArcAngel (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above reasons. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. Well it's been verified by a group member on the OFFICIAL web site. And a few of seem to have a vendetta against the group as a whole (Ericorbit, Wikipedia is not a soapbox), although I admittedly am not the group's greatest fan, I believe in due process--KingMorpheus (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the comment quoted in the nomination? If so, "I think [it will] happen" is far from an actual confirmation, and as for the source: blogs are not considered reliable and the band's own website is not a third party. Ros0709 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the group said that there might be an album in 2008 in her personal blog on the website. Googling ["second album"] and limiting results to the pcdmusic.com website produces 250 results. I will admit I only looked at the first 20, but all of these results either have the phrase "second album" in a non PCD context, (such as lead singer Nicole's participation in recording the second album for Days Of The New in her pre-PCD days [50]) or fans asking each other on blogs/in forum posts if/when there will be one or the possible contents of it. Searching ["new album"] specific to the site provides 1,830 results but more of the same as the first. Other variations of the search phrase ("second PCD album", "second cd" etc] have less than ten results of the same. So, we have a single 'maybe' and a whole lot of irrelevant information and fanspec from the official website (i.e. a non-independant source.

If and when more, confimred, and concrete information is released (such as the title, release date, and tracklist I stated above) and can be referenced, I would have no problems about the re-creation of the article at its proper title, despite my personal dislike of the group. But at the moment, it is just a magnet for speculation, guesswork, and false predictions. To not be deleted, the concrete infomration from reliable independant sources needs to appear. I'm not sure it even exists yet. -- saberwyn 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please Comment on content, not on the contributor. In any case, I would expect that someone who is not a fan of the act would have less difficulty following policy objectively than someone who was. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Ros0709 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. i am the original endorser and repeat my position per the original nomination (handily repeated here). In the interests of full disclosure, i have heard one PCD song in my lifetime and found it a whelming experience. tomasz. 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS, as well as WP:FILM. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niave ssiob Sasquatch[edit]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons as above. bd_ (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD tag keeps coming off this "article". Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank heavens the writers' strike is over. Mandsford (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that according to the talk page this list seems to have been specifically compiled for the 2007 anniversary of the Falkland war to "bring people together".Tikiwont (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144)[edit]

Indiscriminate list of non-notable seamen who served on a particular ship during a 3 year period. Clearly unencyclopedic. Drdisque (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unencyclopedic and overly detailed list of crew on a warship over a three year period. Also, the article only covers a three year period, while the ship was in service for 20 years, then sold to another navy where she is apparently still active. Beautiful material for a book on the history of the ship, but far to detailed for Wikipedia's current purpose. -- saberwyn 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per saberwyn and WP:NOT#INFO. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Talk:HMS Hydra (A144) this article was created to move material out of an over-detailed history of the ship which was created by an enthusiastic new editor. As such, I see no reason to keep this list of non-notable people. I agree with Saberwyn's comment that this is great material for a book or dedicated website on the ship, but is out of place here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate list of information if there ever was one. Keeping this would possibly encourage others to start articles listing everyone who ever served on board any naval vessel, army company, or air force squadron. That's not what Wikipedia's here for. DarkAudit (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:NOT#INFO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD A7 by Orangemike (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three_Dirty_Birds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Three Dirty Birds

They do not appear to be a notable band. Article appears to be solely written by members of the band. Recommend they get some press before declaring themselves notable? Strtpclnrd (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly a CSD:A7 candidate as I see no real claim of viability. -Drdisque (talk) 07:28, 29 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) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dekodiphukan[edit]

Children's book to assist in learning to read. No assertion of notability in the article. 61 Google hits suggests it is non-notable and probably being promoted by its author. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem like vanity to me, but still not notable. -Drdisque (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 hits are for Google Scholar. BTW, absolute Google count can be misleading. Are there any hits there that suggest significance? Dloh cierekim 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seemingly non-notable due to lack of secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Strawberry Flower. Much is already there; I've merged the other stuff, but it seems a little crufty. -Splash - tk 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tane No Uta[edit]

No sources, no nothing. violates WP:Crystal Momusufan (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to check out Pikmin Dance too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/find an appropriate merge target Japanese entertainment magazine sources like Famitsu [51] and Dengeki [52] at least confirm it's the Pikmin 2 theme song. Dunno if the article could be anything more than a permastub, though. I'm not too sure where the complaint of WP:CRYSTAL is coming from, given that it describes a past event. cab (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strawberry Flower unless sources (such as charting) are found to show song is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Charted at #28 [53]. Neier (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does this violate WP:CRYSTAL? Also, Merge to Strawberry Flower. Notability is met, but there's still not enough information to warrant an article separate from the album. Per WP:MUSIC: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The information (and a redirect) should be kept, but there's no cause to have this as a separate article. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a merge/redirect; but, AFD is not {{mergeto}}. This discussion should be closed. Neier (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Distance education (non-admin closure). It should be noted that merge and redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an AfD discussion. RFBailey (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online colleges[edit]

Article is a United States-centric content fork from Distance education and Diploma mill, with a strong dose of "how to guide" included. The article content is very thin, and I think part of it is original research. It has one very solid source, which I copied into the Distance education article before posting this. Because the article scope is covered by those other articles and Category:Distance education institutions, and the article is practically an orphan, it won't be missed. Orlady (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I think the page should be replaced with a redirect to Distance education. I could do that myself, but I think it best to have discussion of this article first. It has existed since May 2007. --Orlady (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Distance education per nom; that page is more thorough in its scope, and seems to be pretty much the same thing. No valuable information would be lost should such a redirect occur. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A major educational innovation over the last few decades. Their validity/invalidity has helped to make them even more notable. Clearly notable. Twenty Years 06:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, currently written more like a How-to than an encyclopedia article. -Drdisque (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - United States topics and ameri-centric topics are not inherently not notable, theres 300 million of us and online education is a major and separate concept from distance education. There is a lot of research and availability and massive notability of the subject. Rewrite maybe, delete I think not! Strong Keep I say!Cholga^talK! 09:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No justification for delete. MrPrada (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom, no need for duplication TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not the issue. No one here has suggested that the topic of online higher education is not notable. The main issue with this article is redundancy (also, there are other problems with the article). Online higher education is the main focus of the article Distance education. For the record, other article names that already redirect to Distance education include Virtual campus, Internet learning, Distance learning, Distance course, Correspondence course, Correspondence education, Correspondence school, Open Universities, Online Master's Program, Online college, Online university and Online universities, Online learning university, Distance university, Distance Learning Education and Degrees, Open and distance learning, Remote learning, and Tuition outsourcing. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use as a redirect page. Likely search term. And the (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Distance education - no loss of info will happen. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distance Education is a very much broader topic, going back many decades. There is certainly enough specific material available for an article. The present article , though, does need to be much expanded. DGG (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom. Orlady, Unless I'm counting wrong, you've now got seven editors supporting merge/redirect and four who want keep. I call that a consensus and I encourage you to take the action. Noroton (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I don't believe I should be the one to close this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced. Perhaps it could be merged with something, but AfD nomination is not the way to discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwyer Custom Coatings[edit]

I speedied this as spam but an admin suggested I take it to AfD, so here it is. I find no rs coverage of this company and the only evidence of the "awards" is on their own sites. Regular ghits appear to be primarily directory listings. Notable clients != notable company, and I don't think this passes WP:CORP especially if we can't verify the awards. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why the speedy was contested. -Drdisque (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Name dropping !=notability. No reliable, independent sources to prove notability. DarkAudit (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, already tried that, it was turned down so it's here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a business that actually makes stuff, and can explain what it does using concrete nouns, I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of a doubt. But Google News draws a blank on them, which suggests that they do indeed lack notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Article was already speedy deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gerbe[edit]

Does not meet WP Ice Hockey notability standards. Has not played, professionally, not a high draft pick, not an Olympian, etc. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper above, doesn't meet WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable junior player. -Djsasso (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of http://bceagles.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/mtt/gerbe_nathan00.html DarkAudit (talk) 14:32, 29 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaye Mortualia[edit]

Fails music and bio guidelines. Google searches yield 59 results and most of them are to her/his site or the wiki page. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, Has not had a charted hit on any national music chart, and looks like it may be a vanity page. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC entirely; has a few very, very minor claims which might put him/her just a shade away from A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. All bands mentioned are redlinks, no reliable sources. 17 Google hits, mostly Myspace and similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha: First Season Box Set[edit]

Article is a list of episodes in a DVD set already covered with the InuYasha article. Article is WP:LISTCRUFT and contains questionable images. KellyAna (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Non notable section already covered in the main article. Undeath (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to List of InuYasha episodes#Season 1: Episodes 1 - 27 as a plausible search term be an option? -- saberwyn 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be kept for Episode summaries and because it is a film and I am the one who created it so I say FInd an alternative cause I really worked hard on that article. --Carson IY (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This box set of a television show would not be considered a "film." There are exceptions to this - for example Gargoyles the Movie: The Heroes Awaken which is the first 5 episodes of the series edited into one long form feature. And though your effort is appreciated. It is not criteria that should be considered in determining the article deletion. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate that you put a lot of work into the summaries, but there already are summaries of the episodes, at List of InuYasha episodes. If you feel those are inadequite, consider instead editing them. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible re-direct. Duplicative information and synopsis already included in List of InuYasha episodes#Season 1: Episodes 1 - 27. I'd also note that the "First Season Box Set" is from a North American perspective, and not representative of the releases of English language versions for other English speaking countries (See Season 1a in UK). AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the pertinant release information to InuYasha#Anime, which even has a tag asking for expansion of the DVD release information. The episode summaries are (poorly) duplicative of the list of episodes -- jettison those along the way. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article, per above. My understanding is individual DVD releases of seasons, etc. are generally not considered notable enough to stand on their own. 23skidoo (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - original nominator has no problem with a merge or redirect. KellyAna (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to merge into the main article (which just needs name, date, and # of episodes). Beyond failing WP:N and WP:TRIVIA, as well as duplicating information other pages. Collectonian (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already stated by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism This page was blanked and has now been reverted. Oh, and by the way... delete as per nom. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the page blanker 65.92.4.190 to be Carson IY, as this IP has begun editing the InuYasha: First Season Box Set article and inserted a link to it the InuYasha article [54].AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve this article. Keep it. I like it alot. I worked hard. It is a DVD and It's like CardCaptors, Test of Courage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.229.41 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another sock of Carson?Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - definitely. He has many. KellyAna (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give you permission to destroy it. I understand why you have to. I shall edit the Episode summaries ont he List of episodes instead. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carson IY (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the article, see WP:OWN, it is not yours to give permission to delete. KellyAna (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Jayron32, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Protocol[edit]

Non-notable "new" but closed beta computer game. I know that being a badly written article is not a reason to delete, but c'mon is this a Google translation? Anyway, nomination is purely on the grounds of notability and not on bad grammar... "Beyond protocol is a new mmorts that for the first time in years takes the mmorts genre to its fullest by have very few to no actuall restrictions to how large a singel player can become." WebHamster 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Tagged. Undeath (talk) 04:10, 29 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 appears to be a conclusion that the material is non-notable even if it were in an acceptable format, and with copyright problems resolved. -Splash - tk 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arab AcademyWikiArticle.pdf[edit]

Wrong way to upload information to wikipedia. Both files are not being used/linked to any other pages. The copyright is also a bit iffy. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, technically this should go to IfD, but it's really kind of sort of an article, or at least that was the uploader's intent. Never mind that the AfD template is yelling at you. These are possibly copyrighted PDFs without any context, and should be deleted for that reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually deleted a few pdf's through IfD, but when I list them in IfD, many people just get tired of looking at the pdf's. I think we need a PDFfD. XD Undeath (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. AFD is the appropriate place for this, and maybe we should add something to that effect in WP:IFD. Otherwise, there's {{Di-orphaned fair use}}.--Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't a useful way to put information into WP, but as articles they would get deleted anyway; no sources, the first document indicates no notability for its subject, the second is OR. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Second one of these in as many days. The file itself describes an Arabic as a second language school, with further text extolling the value of Arabic language skills for businesspeople. But the PDF format is just broken, here. PDFs can't be wikified, sent to appropriate categories, or edited by other users. I'd be inclined to add "articles submitted in PDF formats" to the general category for speedy deletion, since I can't imagine why we'd ever want to host information in PDF format. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and consider The solution to material in unacceptable formats is to have it rewritten properly. I ssume naivity rather than a deliberate attempt to violate our rules.. DGG (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We could copy-and-paste the content into an article in MediaWiki format, put a note on the talk page explaining its origins, and send the PDF to CSD. But even if we did that, it would still be about what appears to be a minor, non-notable institution. Best to get rid of it without wasting any time or effort on it. --RFBailey (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected by me, since nom struck out "delete" !vote and replaced with "redirect". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto People[edit]

Per this comment, this page appears to be a POV fork of Mulatto. I and one other user attempted to redirect, but were reverted. Recommend ~~Delete and Salt~~ Redirect. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, deletion seems unnecessary but protection of the redirect might be needed. I was the other user who attempted to redirect the article. Eóin (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, recommendation changed. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:37, 29 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 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Montoya[edit]

nn soccer player no sources did a google seach could not find anything on him playing ever Oo7565 (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a google search and came up with Elmer glue and Carlos Montoya. If someone can find any information about "Elmer Montoya", then my vote my change, but until then I say delete. Undeath (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Montoya, I remember him playing for Motagua. I can most certainly find news articles or even videos with him just give me a few mins. Chupu (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a news article talking about who is leaving each club for a season, look under Motagua. http://www.elheraldo.hn/nota.php?nid=15060&sec=5&fecha=2004-07-05 and here's a news article talking about training at Motagua http://www.elheraldo.hn/nota.php?nid=44964&sec=5&fecha=2006-01-26 and here's a picture of him with Motagua's training uniform http://www.elheraldo.hn/fotos/40788.jpg Chupu (talk) 04:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Honduran olympic squad for 2000 where he was part of. http://www.zanziball.it/en/28/3b72.html and this is his "profile" http://www.zanziball.it/en/4/61fc.html Chupu (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Build that into the article and it will be kept. John Hayes^talk 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I amended the article to assert notability. I'm not sure how the 2 people above did their google searches. Searching for "Elmer Montoya" reveals the National football teams profile as the third link. English peasant 12:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment here the link you question http://national-football-teams.com/v2/player.php?id=2991 shows northing for them if he played for the team that a horriable site thenOo7565 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for participation in Honduran Olympic squad at least. I believe he has also participated in CONCACAF club competitions with Motagua. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep edits by EnglishPeasant now show notability. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national team player BanRay 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following English peasant edits. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Nominator withdrew his nom after seeing googled sources provided here- please add them to the article, someone.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Keane (company)[edit]

Also nominating Mani Subramanian, as his sole claim to notability appears to be this company.

No notability established and a quick google test shows minimal promise in the possibility of notability being established. Early revisions of the article read like a spamvertisement and the current version is only minimally better. In short, appears to fail WP:CORP hard. Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Per Dhartung's links I'm removing my nomination of the company. However, I'm still not seeing anything about Mani Subramanian that makes him notable, so my nomination there stands. Admins, feel free to move/refactor/whatever this AfD as appropriate due to the new focus. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What kind of search did you do? Keane is one of the largest suppliers of IT contractors in the US/UK. Article needs better sources and a rewrite, of course, but that's a tag issue. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for any of those independent, third-party sources that have non-trivial coverage of the firm. I didn't spot any, though if there's some sources you know of please point 'em out; I'm willing to admit I could be wrong on this, but until I see evidence to the contrary this just seems like another megacorp that people have assumed is worthy of Wikipedia inclusion based on sheer size alone. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have searched very hard, as I was easily able to find WSJ BW NYT Globe Red Herring The Hindu Asia Times eWeek The Age ABCMoney.co.uk WashTech .... that covers four continents. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dhartung. There is plenty of information, contracts information about Keane. There are interviews with Mani Subramaniam, if you google and read through about top 25 hits! Kannan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.23.182 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether the illustrator is mentioned in the book article is an editorial decision on that article, but it would seem reasonable to me to do so, in which case a redirect can be created to it. Ty 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah M. Tillman[edit]

Non-notable illustrator. The only real notability is that she was the illustrator of a debut novel (The People of Paper) but is this enough? She contributes to LA Record, a blog which in and of itself isn't really that notable. No outside biographical references regarding her except this article from a newspaper [55], but even then it is mainly about her experience with cancer. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holdon on this one, may be notable.Cholga^talK! 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, if the novel is worthy of an article then the illustrator is worthy of one too, so I think this deletion needs to go back a step or two. The blog aspects of the article should certainly be reduced to a single entry. Geeman (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After reading the debate below, I'm changing my "Comment" to a vote to "Keep." I'm afraid the arguments for her being non-notable strike me as proving the opposite more often than not, and have not addressed the core problem with the deletion described above. Geeman (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But what is the difference between a "notable" illustrator and just an "ordinary" illustrator (i.e. just a regular job for someone) ? Are we to assume any person who illustrates any novel is notable? I understand how others such as Richard Chopping and James Jean have articles because of their overall body of work but Tillman's work seems minor. If anything there should be a mention in the novel's article but I'm not sure if a seperate article is needed. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would not assume that every illustrator is worthy of mention. However, in this case it seems clear that not mentioning the illustrator would be strange given the nature of the book. I wouldn't object to rolling this article into the book article, but that's not what's being asked for here.... Geeman (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that there are absolutely no external sources mentioning her body of work as the sole subject prove the opposite that she is not notable? The question here is the illustrator. I believe that she should be mentioned in the book article but having a seperate article given the very limited scope of her work is not necessary. It can't be outright assumed that without the illustrations the book would've been noteworthy. None of the reviews mention the integral nature of the illustrations and to say that it does goes against Wikipedia's original research policy. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Googling for the book and her name was a means of looking for notable discussion of her work. That's the fundamental meaning of notable: that someone has noted it, right? And that's the rub: while I agree the work in question is striking, I don't see how she can be claimed as notable if nobody wants to talk about her. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LA Record is not a blog, although there may be blogs on its website. LA Record is a print publication with wide circulation in Los Angeles. Ms. Tillman contributes regularly.Ribs27 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) page's primary author[reply]
Delete as she doesn't appear to be notable enough yet. Googling for her name and the title of the book she illustrated produces a single page of hits, and not all of them are relevant. Maybe later. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book is not her only achievement. And consider this: I have done some research, and I'm finding less notable alumni in the lists of schools of equal or comparable prestige to Whittier College. For example, in the following entry, this singer/songwriter has on his page a mere discography that is no more notable than Ms. Tillman's contribution to a popular LA publication. In addition, his collaboration with Ben Harper is no more notable than Ms. Tillman's with Plascencia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Freund

Furthermore, Harvery Mudd College lists in their notable alumni a young man who is (brace yourself) a former member of a less than noteworthy band.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tapper

Ribs27 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Page's primary author[reply]

Delete: So what do we have here?. There is not enough reference to show a notable illustrator, doing an illustration for another notable person's book, Salvador Plascencia, wont work because Notability is not inherited. If this person were a notable columnist then there will have to be some citation of other people writing about her as such. User:Ribs27, just because you can find other stuff you think is not notable has nothing to do with this discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing -- the illustrations in the first edition of Salvador Plascencia's _People of Paper_ are not incidental. They're a fundamental part of the meaning of this text. If one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to be a research tool, then I think Tillman needs to be included, especially as a separate entry of the kind under discussion will link to her other works. We do not need to think too long before envisioning any number of users who would benefit from this kind of comparative research.Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's illustrated ~~an article~~ articles and supplied the ~~cover art~~ illustrations for a notable author's book. I've searched online reviews of the book, but can't find anything about the cover illustration being in any way significant. A regular working illustrator at the start of their career. Not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sets her apart from other working illustrators is that she battled and beat cancer at two very crucial times in her life-- during high school and during college-- and might I add that according the to the article in Whittier Daily News she was still salutatorian of her graduating class. I know the argument keeps coming up that this doesn't make her notable. I think that argument is tenuous and I stand by that. Ribs27 (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out, gently, that Ethicoaestheticist is incorrect. Sarah Tillman did not render the cover art but the internal illustrations for _The People of Paper_, as noted in the first flyleaf imprint information in the first and subsequent editions of the book -- as well as two foreign versions I've seen. I don't know how many or which reviews of _The People of Paper_ Ethicoaestheticist looked at, but time and again the material and formal aspects of the novel are discussed and championed, not to mention largely regarded as what makes it so singular. Tillman's illustrations are a crucial part of the formal structure of the book and, arguably, its content, and thus I do not think her notability can be so easily dismissed. Finally, a quick search of the online version of _LA Record_ -- a weekly Los Angeles publication with a print run of 5,000 -- reveals that Tillman has not illustrated "an" article but sixteen of them in the past 12 months. Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the book reviews I consulted: [56], [57]. No mention of the illustrator. I also searched Google for the title of the book and the artist's name: [58]. The single hit is the Bomb magazine article already referenced in the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Corrections are appreciated, Ethicoaestheticist.) I wonder if we can take an alternate approach to the question here, one that seems to have been touched on in some of the previous posts. I want to ask: Would the notable novel _The People of Paper_ be the same work without the illustrations? If the answer is no -- and I think it would be hard to argue any other point -- then are the illustrations not notable, as well? It happens that, despite credit given to the illustrator in the imprint information, external biographical information is scant. To my mind, this fact has little bearing on the significance and/or notability of the book's illustrations. And so, a final question: This novel is notable, its author is notable, and the illustrations within the book are clearly notable, so how can we not regard the person responsible for the illustrations as notable? Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment External biographical information from an independent source is extremely important. To say that it has little bearing or significance is to ignore one of the fundamental criteria of notability guidelines of Wikipedia. The fact that Sarah Tillman has not been the subject of any independent work/review shows that she is not a noteworthy illustrator. As mentioned before notability is not inherited. That is not to say that without the illustrations the book would've been different. Maybe it was an integral part or maybe it's not. The point is that none of the reviews say anything about the importance of the illustrations (i.e. without them the book would not have been the same) To claim that it does without any citable references goes against Wikipedia's no original research. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so basically all someone has to do is throw up three websites that talk about the illustrations in this book and then this illustrator is notable? i understand why wikipedia has such hard definitions of notability but given some other entries ive seen it seems like when it comes down to it its the whim of individual wikipedia administrators as to whether or not an entry gets to stay. she illustrated this book and shes a regular contributor to la record which even though it doesnt have a wikipedia entry is a notable publication. i think if the proposed entry had been written slightly differently it would not be provoking all of this notability discussion. starfishmonkey —Preceding comment was added at 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, You need to find sites that talk about her, mentioning the book. She doesn't inherit notability from the book. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysepsion, I think you misrepresented what I wrote, above. I did not suggest that external biographical information from an independent source has little bearing or significance on whether Tillman should be included in Wikipedia -- I wrote that Tillman's notability (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the illustrations' notability (though if I had to go back I would write "significance"). Further, I don't think I'm offering original research when I argue that the illustrations are integral. The unique material aspects of the book are mentioned in the reviews, critiques, etc., and clearly the illustrations are a part of this materiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debarag7791 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to look for reviews which mention the illustrations as being an integral part of the book. I've found none. Perhaps I've missed something unless you can provide the reviews and critiques you are speaking of. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysepsion, with respect, I must note that this is the second time you've misread one of my posts. I wrote that the materiality of the book and its formal uniqueness -- not the illustrations -- are mentioned in reviews and critiques. However, though they are not mentioned explicitly, the illustrations are obviously one of the formal aspects of the book (in, for example, Plascencia's use of Tillman's renditions of gang hand signs as chapter headings). This is not original research, it is a fact -- illustrations are part of a book's formal structure -- and I'm sure if were to ask Plascencia's readers (not one of whom, I am sure, are among those discussing this issue), they would agree. I do not suggest that Tillman's notability is debatable -- at least, let us say, her notability outside of the readers of experimental fiction or music magazines in Los Angeles. But we seem to have arrived at a point where deletion proponents are arguing, oh, well she's not notable, so her work is not notable, too. And that's some specious reasoning. Debarag7791 —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's original research policy, notability guidelines, reliable sources, notability is not inherited and neutral point of view. It seems that almost all the arguments for the inclusion of this article are ignoring these fundamental guidelines. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly NN. I see our article on the novel doesn't mention the illustrations either. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dysepsion has pointed out, unfortunately this proposed entry seems to have been entered by a non-neutral party, and given notability requirements and other Wikipedia policies, a separate entry is not justifiable. However, given the nature of the book and the nature of these illustrations (which I've discussed above, and ad nauseum), I think a one-line mention in the entry for the book is most certainly called for. Debarag7791

— Debarag7791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Starblind, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Papaya and Me[edit]

Likely a WP:HOAX, otherwise fails WP:N and WP:SOURCES Mr Senseless (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Never mind, the more I read it, the more it qualifies for speedy deletion, almost blatant vandalism. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 29 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. GlassCobra 06:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral of the Fleet of the Russian Federation[edit]

fake rank --sk-ru (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it's an erroneously created rank; a search turned up no sources that mistakenly used the term. Otherwise this page is mostly OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I searched for it on Google, and found a wiki article with that text in it: History of Russian military ranks. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the text in there anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's there, but wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just because it's here doesn't mean it's real. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Admiral of the Fleet (Russia) (apparently the next lower rank, the highest documented rank remaining in the Russian Navy). It does exist (Vladimir Vysotsky (Admiral) is the incumbent), and to the extent that this is worth mentioning, it's worth mentioning there. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Admiral of the Fleet is highest rank in Russian Navy, but Vysotsky not Admiral of the Fleet, he Admiral. Last Russian Admiral of the Fleet is Vladimir Masorin. --sk-ru (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now. I was confusing role with rank. --Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no such rank. The rank of the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union was not replaced with one for the Russian Federation after the disbandments of the Soviet Fleets.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:08, 29 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 extensive improvements. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture[edit]

Another pure WP:TRIVIA page that has no notability on its own. Any of actual significance belong in the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. This is not an appropriate sub-page (if that's its reason for being). AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "In popular culture" is usually a red flag, meaning "list of every possible trivial mention that ever existed". Here that's no exception. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Somebody said Buffy this one time on TV" is not a basis for an encyclopedic article. This is a trivial collection of things that have absolutely no relationship to one another beyond that they have mentioned Buffy to a greater or lesser degree. Otto4711 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer and Otto above. Deor (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep A number of these are well-sourced and don't involve OR. For example the New Scientist article is explicitly talking about someone else referencing Buffy. So there's no fundamental policy issue with this list. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A number of them might be sourced, but a number of them seem to be OR too. Also, this is way too trivial for wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it "too trivial" is essentiallyjust WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And OR can be removed so that's not a real objection. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No calling it too trivial means just that: the information is trivial in nature. Undeath (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:IDONTLIKEIT: ...some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the sourced entries under "Sketch shows" may be of interest (i.e. weak merge) but offer no analysis why they are significant. The others are Original Research or trivial. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article or keep and transform it to a list article if necessary for length considerations. This information is cited and does not need to be deleted from the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There are 14 citations, two of which are in the lead. Everything is not cited...most of it is not cited. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is incorrect as the material is not miscellaneous but has a specific focus - parodies and other derivative works. The main article is already 75K and so this material should not be merged there per WP:SIZE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially a big trashbin of trivia. Example: "During the prom in the second season finale of South of Nowhere, Ashley remarks, "Come on, let's go before the Hellmouth opens."" Trivia secyions are discouraged in articles and even worse when they *are* the whole article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:TRIVIA guideline that you cite:

There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.

This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know there was a crusade against "in popular culture" articles last year, but Buffy is widely considered a very influential series and the material here moves it out of the trivia (which by definition is a list of unconnected miscallany, which this is not). If there's an issue with sources (I still don't get how a TV episode that can be verified by viewing is any different than a magazine article or book that is verified by reading) that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this appropriate, discriminate, and encyclopedic article. Passes WP:TRIVIA. An WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, too. Finally, the topic even served as the focus of a course at the University of California, San Diego (Popular Culture in Critical Perspective: Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and in an academic study (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale (Popular Culture and Philosophy)). See also Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy. By: MAGOULICK, MARY. Journal of Popular Culture, Oct2006, Vol. 39 Issue 5, p729-755, 27p; DOI: 10.1111/j. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm fairly certain that you really don't see the irrelevance of the stuff you're citing to the topic of this article. And that's scary. Deor (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be scared about (although the show is about vampires). It has been covered in popular culture journals: Rebecca Housel, "Review of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale," Journal of Popular Culture 37.4 (May 2004): 727-729; Frances H. Early, "Staking Her Claim: Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Transgressive Woman Warrior," Journal of Popular Culture 35.3 (Winter 2001): 11; Mary Kirby-Diaz, "Blood Relations: Chosen Families in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel by Jes Battis," Journal of Popular Culture 39.5 (Oct. 2006): 907-908; Mary Magoulick, "Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy," Journal of Popular Culture 39.5 (Oct., 2006): 729-755; Sabrina Ramet, "Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of Popular Culture 39.2 (Apr. 2006): 338-340; James B. South, "“All Torment, Trouble, Wonder, and Amazement Inhabits Here”: The Vicissitudes of Technology in Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 24.1/2 (Spring/Summer 2001): 93-102; Terry L. Spaise, "Necrophilia and SM: The Deviant Side of Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of Popular Culture 38.4 (May 2005): 744-762; Susan Clerc, "Review of Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon," Journal of Popular Culture 38.2 (Nov 2004): 427-428; etc. and we can and should use these sources to revise the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing some cleanup on the article and removing some less notable items, the article is sufficiently well focused to demonstrate the shows significant popular influence. And as others have pointed out, WP:TRIV is a style guide, not a content guide, and does not include criteria for removal. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, there is some junk in this article, ~~but per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles (which covers this article, not WP:TRIVA~~ there are also sources for some of the things mentioned in the article, so it should be kept. SirBob42 (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay...not a guideline nor a policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up and improve refs. Parodies and spoofs of Buffy should be regarded as notable; brief glimpses or mentions in some comic, tv show, film etc. should be regarded as trivia and removed. I'm glad to see that some improvements have already been made to this artice, but it still needs more. PC78 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - while the New Scientist article mentions Buffy, creating a list of mentions of Buffy doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at the end of the day, everything on Wikipedia is trivia so that's not a valid reason for deletion. This is too long to merge into the main article, and it looks like an okay sub-article per summary style. It has plenty of citations. --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Another barely-disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination.~~ WP:TRIVIA does not in any way advocate the deletion of "popular culture" lists or articles, and in fact explicitly excludes them when focused, organized, and sourced. ~~It's bad enough to wikilawyer policy, but it's utterly audacious to pretend that policy supports what you're saying when it doesn't.~~--Father Goose (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also totally unnotable on its own, but I guess you missed that it was part of the nomination. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from WP:N and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular_culture#References make your claim of it being "totally unnotable" unconvincing.--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed out the more invective parts of my earlier post. I apologize, but I get very frustrated when I see issues deserving editorial attention shuttled to AfD instead.--Father Goose (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These entries are well sourced, and buffy was a popular show which deserves its own pop culture article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has 3d party refs and would be too big if merged into main Buffy article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good example of a _____ in popular culture article that has reliable sources and is sufficiently important. — brighterorange (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the better-referenced pop. culture articles. The deletes seem to generally be citing content issues, which can be cleaned up with some work. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion. The consensus has repeatedly been that the use of a notable character in notable fictions is worthy of an encyclopedia article, and the individual items are sourced as plots and characters are by the works themselves. Additional references and discussion is of course desirable, but not critical to keeping the article. It's been a long time since we've had one of these challenged. DGG (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional Keep~~ because there are numerous popular culture resources to write prose. However, the "References in other works of fiction" section is purely trivia and needs to be completely replaced by the academic resources. Such random bits, like passing quotes and background screenings, don't contribute to the topic at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who beg to differ with that opinion. Such lists serve to document the specific influence the subject has had on popular culture.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a particular topic was briefly mentioned in another topic doesn't convey any kind of notion. If there are female characters written to be based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the themes of the show have influenced other shows' themes, that's worth noting. However, listing every example of popular culture permeation can be indiscriminate. Why does every specific instance need to be outlined? Why can't it be said, "This topic appeared in television, film, and comics" and be done with it? Identifying a particular incarnation has no inherent value. It's essentially trivia. A lot of popular culture articles have been like this, and I think that the resources available for this particular topic gives this article an opportunity to provide content worthy of encyclopedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The problem is that (now, since Le Grand Roi has taken it in hand) the article is "about" two different things. The links in the lead and the sources cited in notes 1–7 all seem to be about how cultural topics are reflected in BtVS itself, whereas the list of which the article mainly consists deals with references to BtVS in other works of pop culture. Erik is quite right that there's a problem here. In its current state the article is schizophrenic; many of the sources—and some of the prose—deal with matters other than what the title and list suggest. If this is to be an article about cultural aspects of the show, the list needs to go. If it's to be about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture," the phony sources need to go (along with the whole article, in my opinion). Deor (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why the article can't be about both, i.e. have a text segment that covers the topics place in popular culture while having a list demonstrating it's notability and influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that if the article is taken in the direction indicated by Le Grand Roi's "references," it becomes essentially a redundant topic fork of the existing article Buffy studies. Deor (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were the case and after all I agree that article should keep the in popular culture list section that demonstrates its influence and is easily verifiable than we would end up with a merge and redirect without deletion. There's no scenario in which outright deletion makes sense here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sez you. Deor (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I say that, along with what looks like 13 others arguing to keep this article as well as several editors who saw fit to volunteer their time to work on improving this article over the past several months. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is viewed 1500-2000 times a month.Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this aspires to trivia, masquerading as encyclopedic content. Sourcing trivia still makes it trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were the case (which it isn't because academic journal articles have covered Buffy the Vampie Slayer in popular culture), trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And more to the point, I'm not sure how pointing to a Manual of Style guideline supports your vote for deletion. WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline, it is not a content guideline. Could you explain your vote please? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, changing from "Conditional Keep", since the academic sources uncovered can belong at Buffy studies. With the sources belonging in a more specific place, the indiscriminate listing of unimportant mentions of a certain topic in the realm of popular culture is just trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is actually discriminate. It only lists places in which Buffy the Vampie Slayer appear in popular culture and thereby inidcates her influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her influence in what way? That she's popular? "Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been mentioned in passing in other television shows and films." Done. There's no need for indiscriminate specifics. Knowing that a character on an unrelated TV show mentions Buffy means nothing on the surface. We can all read different kinds of importance for various bits of information, but the lack of secondary sourcing surrounding any particular reference makes the information unimportant. The references that can be added to Buffy studies would be far more substantial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a neeed for this discriminate list in that it demonstrates how she has been received in popular culture and in what context. Anything can be interpreted differently by different people, but that does not negate it's value as a reference item for someone cundicting research on this topic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references say anything about how she has been received. If we analyze the purpose of a reference, such as saying that Buffy was mentioned here because a character was implying the need for the presence of a strong female character, that's going to be original research. We don't go that far, but we just push a lot of trivia forward and say that there is something worth reading into it when there's no secondary sourcing that does so. If there's a reference in popular culture that comes up, there is usually a topic of established notability that can be explored. Here, passing examples are being pushed forward with no interwoven importance. Repeating example after example of a part of popular culture found in the rest of popular culture with zero insight provided is indiscriminate and trivial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research makes some kind of an argument. I don't see a discriminate list as an original thesis. Plus, trivia is encyclopedic. If someone took the time to write the article, others in good faith developed it, and still others believe it should be kept, it is obviously important enough to a respectable number of editors and readers and so we gain nothing by removing it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree... I don't think we're going to change each other's minds anytime soon. :) I would have to argue that Wikipedia is not the place for everything, and there are Wikias that are far more suitable for certain information than others. Perhaps we need a Wikiquote-like Wikitrivia where little bits of information can go unimportant, unsorted and unrestrained by encyclopedic boundaries. :-P I bid thee adieu, and hopefully the next time we talk will be in agreement, like with that rare encounter regarding Weapons of Resident Evil 4. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is good that we were able to agree in at least that discussion and I am not opposed to the creation of something coherent and easy enough to find that somehow preserves this content. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promising lead section followed by an article of trivia. There's way too much Buffy fancruft on Wikipedia and this is an example of that. I love the show with a fiery passion, and I'm not questioning it's notability, but surely the important stuff can be covered elsewhere, like Erik suggested? Paul 730 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An online paperless encyclopedia cannot have "too much" stuff so long as its encyclopedic and I believe the topic has been proven encyclopedic. If it's a matter of duplicate coverage in another article, then the decision would be a merge and redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes too much stuff when a notable topic is stretched thin across lots of articles when it could and should be covered tidily on a single article. We do not need an article listing all the times words like "Buffy" and "Hellmouth" were mentioned in other shows. It's trivial and unnecessary. An article covering Buffy's actual role in pop culture (that would be third party sources discussing it's influence on feminism in fiction or something, not "Oh, the word Buffy was mentioned in Smallville") would be completely acceptable in my eyes, but because the shows is so popular amongst Wikipedia editors, they seem to think we need separate articles for everything. Regardless, this article is trivial. What enyclopedic purpose do sentences like "In the Charmed episode "The Power of Two", Phoebe Halliwell says the line, "Where's Buffy when you need her?" when they are in a cemetery." actually serve? Where's the source discussing how Charmed was influenced by Buffy? It's a minor reference, given undue weight, and utterly pointless on this website. Paul 730 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are willing to write this article, work on it, and readers are interested in it then it is neither trivial nor unnecessary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In responce to Paul730's comment, I have removed a few of the more tangential Buffy mentions. I still think this article should be kept, and if it is kept, then this article should only contain strong examples. It's true that we don't need _every_ mention of the word "Buffy", but doing the opposite and having absolutely none is perhaps a little short sighted. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)See WP:ILIKEIT, since other editors here are so quick to quote WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Buffy pop culture/academic study article but we certainly don't two of them, once of which is just trivia. A random quote from some show has no context, no purpose, it's just a quote. Also, there's some serious OR problems as well. How do we know such-and-such "Buffy" reference was actually about the show? Maybe they just thought the name was funny, if we have no sources we can't jump to conclusions. I'm not opposed to covering things like Robot Chicken appearances somewhere but even they could probably be covered at the main BtVS article. It's not like this article has galleons of substantial content that really needs it's own page. I'd be willing to change my vote to merge. Paul 730 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "I like it" (a positive, versus "I don't like it," which is negative) is necessarily a bad argument as we have fundraisers on Wikipedia so we need articles that editors like and therefore want to contribute to and/or read in order for them to feel donating is worthwhile. Besides, trivia is encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to have the consensus. Fram (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired professional American football runningbacks[edit]

Listcruft and indiscriminate information. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of remaining articles comes after the final decision of List of retired professional American football quarterbacks (AfD discussion linked). Ksy92003 (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Comment – It looks like the compiler of these lists gave up working on them, leaving them in mixed degrees of completeness. A couple of them are pretty far along, whereas others are barely started. I can see an argument that there's no point in keeping lists that are so incomplete and that no one is working on, but the nominator's rationale doesn't fly. These lists are not indiscriminate information. BRMo (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more to my nomination rationale that I left out during the nomination. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of what I hate about Wikipedia's AfD process. The list of quarterbacks never should have been nominated for deletion without also considering the lists for the other positions. Poorly designed processes lead to poor decisions.

Going back to my earlier point, indiscriminate information is not a valid argument for deletion. These lists could present information that a category couldn't (especially red links for players without articles, but potentially other information as well). The deletion of the quarterback list is certainly important information, but it isn't clear to me that the appropriate decision was made in that case. BRMo (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In time, every player will fall in one of these lists when they retire. Might as well be a list of all players in all positions. Difficult to manage. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the purpose of these lists. Wouldn't it be useful to have a list of all players in all positions? I agree that it's difficult to manage, but not impossible if an editor or group of editors completed and maintained them. BRMo (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really that useful for a list of all players in each different position; that's why I didn't nominate List of American football players. There isn't anything really important about the different positions they play. It's not always helpful to break things down to the simplest level there is. This is one instance where I don't even think that a category would really help. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003, your comment astonishes me—an American football player's position is the most important defining characteristic of his role in the game. And just because you don't find a list of players by position useful, why assume that others don't find it useful? It seems to me that if the lists were complete and well maintained, they could be useful for all sorts of research purposes. BRMo (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me rephrase that. I believe that positions are a great defining quality between players and their importance on a team. I don't believe, however, that position (or anything else) should be used to split up other lists. Every player ever to have played that position (be it running back, wide receiver, etc.) is going to retire eventually. It's inevitable. It's a list that's going to expand and expand every season because every player (even Brett Favre at some point) is going to retire at the end of his career. Therefore, I don't think that "retired" status is a good differentiation because it happens to everybody, not just running backs, not just wide receivers, not just centers. Ksy92003 (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm still finding it difficult to follow your rationale for deleting these lists. Yes, of course every player is eventually going to retire. But active players already have a list that hasn't been nominated for deletion. Retired versus active status is certainly a defining characteristic of an athlete; it's usually mentioned in the first sentence of any athlete's article. For most potential uses of these lists, I think I'd want to have a split between the active and retired players. Furthermore, I'd think that maintenance of the lists might be improved by limiting them to retired players, because when they move off the active list they could be moved onto the retired lists. I'm not seeing how this is a valid argument for deletion. BRMo (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current players aren't always going to be active. They're all going to eventually retire. They are currently active, but in 20, 30 years, they won't be. It's inevitable for them. In almost 99% of all cases, once a player retires, he's done for good. He usually doesn't go back and play again. For those many, it's an irreversible process to go from active to retired. Once players are retired, they're retired for good. That list will continue to grow infinitely. The list you're talking about is going to stay at a near constant quantity; there is a limit to how many active players there can be. The same cannot be said for retired players. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that current players will retire and the lists will grow. Lots of lists grow over time. But the lists could be improved and maintained. If they eventually get too big, they could be split. I still don't understand why this is an argument for deletion. BRMo (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because all players inevitably retire, there's nothing "special" about retired players because they're retired. Something like "List of Hall of Fame American football running backs" would be a different situation because Hall of Fame is a notable, distinguishing characteristic. Retired status isn't. Ksy92003 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement may not be "special," but it's certainly a defining characteristic of a player. If active and retired players were consolidated in one list, I'd still want it to separately identify the active players from those who are retired. For most uses of such a list, you'd need to know which players are retired and which are active. I really don't understand a case why listing the retired players separately from the active players (who have their own list) makes the list useless. I'm not seeing that the deletion arguments are addressing the potential usefulness of the lists. All I'm hearing is IDONTLIKEIT. BRMo (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, this AfD is giving me a headache. I don't think retirement is as much of a "defining characteristic" of a player as you think it is. As I've said earlier, there is a difference between a list of current players and a list of retired players. There isn't any special significance about retired players for being retired because it's something that happens to every single player, inevitably. Therefore, I don't think there's any real reason why you'd need a list of retired players. Retired status just doesn't seem to be a special characteristic of a player in this capacity. Ksy92003 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ksys92003; I know I've been pushy and a bit cantankerous. I've been finding myself increasingly dissatisfied with how the AfD process works for lists (and to a lesser extent, for categories). For regular articles, the issues are almost always objective--are there sources available to satisfy the notability criteria? is the article a POV fork? etc. The criteria are well understand, and although there will always be a few articles that lie on the boundary, in 95 percent of the cases, the criteria clearly define the outcome. But for lists, the criteria seem to be much more "fuzzy" and subjective. The reason I've been pushing you is that I wanted to see a clearer explanation of why you think these lists ought to be deleted.

I've spent enough time working on categories and lists to know that sometimes a great deal of time and effort goes into creating them. Unfortunately, most of the time the arguments for (and against) deletion seem to be talking past each other, each editor making assumptions that other participants may not share. We hear comments like "list is too broad," "list is too narrow," "list ought to be a category," "category ought to be a list," "needs more information," "too cluttered with irrelevant information," or worst of all, "listcruft." The only way I can interpret these kind of comments is as ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

After considerable pushing, I think I finally understand that your assumption is that lists should be restricted to groups with "special significance," such as members of the Hall of Fame. I guess I approached this with different assumptions. Because I sometimes do statistical analysis of sports, I think it's great when you can get a comprehensive list that covers the entire population. Also, my interests tend to lie more with the players who weren't stars, but nevertheless led interesting lives. (For example, probably my favorite article to edit was Connie Marrero, a baseball pitcher whose 39-40 major league career record doesn't begin to tell the story of his entire career.) A list of retired players would allow me to look for the good players who aren't in the Hall of Fame, or to look for redlinks where I might be able to start an article.

For AfD discussions of lists to work better, I think we all need to do a better job of articulating our assumptions about what Wikipedia lists should be and why the list being considered does or doesn't meet that criteria. For me, the big problem with this set of lists is that they are quite incomplete (which makes them much less useful) and there don't seem to be any editors taking an active interest in improving them. Therefore, although I'd find these lists to be very useful if they could be completed, I'm ambivalent about them as they stand now. BRMo (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Retired vs. active status is not a useful classification to make in a list. The lists are poorly constructed anyway, since I would expect such lists to contain useful annotation for the entries such as teams played for and years of activity. At the very least the lists should include retirement dates. Quale (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The lists are obviously not indiscriminate information and serve a useful navigation purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Since all athletes will eventually retire or die, the qualifier is a pointless one. Edison (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course all athletes will retire or die. Why does it make the qualifier pointless? BRMo (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the above and the earlier referenced AfD discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lists as they stand are of no value. They are incomplete, are categories masquerading as lists, and the status of being retired is non-defining. If there is no desire to improve them, they should be deleted. However, if the NFL project is willing to "tackle" these lists, and bring them to something more, there is no reason why they can't be kept, renamed to remove the retired qualifier and expanded. This is something the Hockey project is doing with many similar lists. see: List of Calgary Flames players, List of NHL players: Z for examples. Reso lute 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, way too broad scope. Punkmorten (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete all would make a better category. Charles Stewart (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per the discussions on the quarterback AfD. (Note that I was the nominator for that one). Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep football is too importantCholga^talK! 01:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Football is not up for deletion. Resolute 06:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cholga is an indef banned sockpuppet. Jfire (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and make into a category for easy navigation of retired coaches, players, etc. — Save_Us † 08:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categories do not have all of the players whoever played in those positions and there are articles that are not made of former football players.

Want a cookie? Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at personal attack has been removed and is noted. Corvus cornix_talk 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several things for the record, Corvus. First, I made the comment small because the way that Phbasketball wrote that comment looked horrible and I wanted to make sure that the closing admin wouldn't think of it as a double-vote. Second, I wasn't in no way condoning the attack. I wasn't even sure what to make of it and thought better to not remove it or say anything about it. It was such a weak attempt at a personal attack, in my opinion, that I couldn't even make the call as to whether it was one or not.

So my <small>-ing of the text was simply to protect you from a "double vote" (which you could've easily defended yourself from, anyway) and wasn't condoning the actual comment. Thought you should know that. Ksy92003 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a short list of football players with red links in your userspace, then do so. But because the article for them doesn't exist isn't exactly a valid reason to keep. — Save_Us † 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, Wikipedia is suppose to give out as much infomation of famous people, events, places, or other things and they are a lot of red links that were famous players in college and/or the professional level. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not here for adding an all inclusive list of red-links of players. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indescriminate list of information. — Save_Us † 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance given at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." Since all retired NFL players satisfy WP:ATHLETE, they all satisfy the notability criteria for the category and if an article doesn't exist, they could be eligible for one in the future. Thus, this list is not indiscriminate information. BRMo (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of "indiscriminate information" of lists isn't whether the notability of the players on the list is in question, rather if the qualifier makes it indiscriminate. Ksy92003 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "indiscriminate" is being used, shall we say, somewhat indiscriminately.:-) Indiscriminate is not a synonym for "ordinary." According to Wiktionary, it means "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." Yahoo reference gives the following definitions: 1) Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective. 2) Random; haphazard. 3) Confused; chaotic. 4) Unrestrained or wanton; profligate. The guidance given by Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists emphasizes the usefulness or value of the lists as well as the notability of the subjects. A list like List of American football players with three-syllable given names would be indiscriminate because the categorization is confused or seemingly random and it is hard to imagine how it could be useful. On the other hand, playing position and status as retired or active, although perhaps ordinary, are defining characteristics of a player, usually mentioned in the first paragraph of each player's article. Furthermore, as I've now said repeatedly, complete lists of retired professional American football by position would have many potential uses. I think describing these lists as "indiscriminate information" is a misuse of the term; the lists are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia stand-alone lists. BRMo (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the same reasons I made in the quarterbacks discussion. All NFL players at every position will eventually retire, so these kinds of lists would just be redundant to the main lists of players for each position. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to what main lists? There's a list of active players, but I'm not aware of any other lists that cover retired players. BRMo (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. нмŵוτн τ 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIESS[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No context to assert notability of the subject. It just appears to be a school program. Either way, it does not assert any notability. Undeath (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually declined a G11 on it, and immediately took it to AFD. I couldn't quite justify a G11, but the thought did cross my mind. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - G11 might not have been the best way to speedy it either. The no context delete, IMO, fits great. Undeath (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- non-notable, as only Google hit is the page itself. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to show that it has notability, it also lacks context. Oyster guitarist 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, per my original tag on the article since removed (see also comments above). I believe it does qualify for speedy deletion on this basis because the references all take you to class sign-up pages. I also endorse nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 08:45, 29 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:Black Kite, author indef blocked as well. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foamaspherobia[edit]

Contested prod. Zero google hits. Smells suspiciously like something made up in school one day. Roleplayer (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:02, 29 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:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi persecution; lovers and other criminals[edit]

Essentially an essay, full of OR and POV. Violates WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V Mr Senseless (talk) 00:32, 29 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 List of regional Burning Man events faithless (^speak) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfterBurn[edit]

One more regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, and I'm guessing that the attendance figure given (800,008) is a wee bit suspect. Seeks to promote, not inform. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:20, 29 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 List of regional Burning Man events. Although no arguments have been advanced to keep this article as anything other than a merge, I have also considered arguments advanced in the linked AfD and the other nominations for deletion concerning Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myschievia[edit]

Yes, officer, it's another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. Extra points, though, for burning down a model of the Roman Colosseum. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:21, 29 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 (non-admin closure), weak keep as it's said this group has been around 29 years, but it's also claimed there are WP:RS, I will give ou the benefit of the doubt, but please add them if you want this article to survive any future AfD. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association[edit]

Non-notable student association, article has no third-party or reliable sources. Agüeybaná 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Google search. JJL (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific, please? The ultimate point is to improve this article. BTW, WP:GHITS. --Agüeybaná 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment improving the article is not in fact the ultimate point here, as per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F. AfDs are not for article improvement; a good article on a non-notable subject isn't the desired outcome. I do concur with WP:GHITS: "...using a search engine like Google can be useful...". JJL (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process is incorrect on that. If the subject truly is notable and fit to have in this encyclopedia, then it comes out of Afd with a few more and better references. If the subject truly is non-notable, then it is deleted. Therefore, Afds contribute to article improvement, except in cases like this one, were the subject is notable only in the eyes of Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes. --Agüeybaná 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Agueybana your comments are really discriminatory, and baseless, I recommend seeing the biographies of the members and leaders and verify if they are as you call "Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes". Furthermore the proposal is based purely on political bias, and it is further proved by your statements. The importance of the organization is demonstrated by the article itself. Furthermore, the amount of people already involved and affected by it is evergrowing. Ill be adding soon a reference to the article from the island's major paper, which talks solely about the PRSSA. And about the Google thing, I do believe the page is showing I searched it right now, it is on the 3rd or 4th position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.177.208 (talk • contribs)

You were correct in identifying I have political bias; I am anti-US to the core. However, you were incorrect in saying that the reason for this discussion is that bias. I assure you that I made this nomination based on policy, not ideology. --Agüeybaná 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I stand by my "Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes" remark. The links you provided here are all pro-statehood (hence the "Puerto Rican-bred yanks" part). --Agüeybaná 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you can see in http://www.fortunogobernador.com/comienzos.php , the PRSSA is highlighted in Congressman Fortuño's campaign biography as one of his most important contributions to the statehood effort. PRSSA also figured prominently in Senate President Kenneth McClintock's official biography at http://www.senadopr.us/senadores/senador.asp?bId=2wj8wl2Ett31&lan= until non-official references were deleted in December 2007 to comply with the State Elections Commission's election year government publicity rules. It also is mentioned as an important part of NPP congressional candidate Pedro Pierluisi's biography at http://prdemocratcorner.blogspot.com/2007/10/pedro-r.html. These are three third-party reliable sources that justify non-deletion of an article on an organization founded not 29 days or 29 months ago, but 29 years ago, which has produced several of Puerto Rico's most prominent and successful public figures today, including Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño, Senate President Kenneth McClintock, former Attorney General and current NPP congressional candidate Pedro Pierluisi, his late brother José Jaime Pierluisi who remains the youngest ever Economic Counsel to the Governor in history, Caribbean Business editor Francisco Cimadevilla, and others. This organization:

1-has withstood the test of time

2-its founders have become notables

3-greatly influenced the outcome of the 1980 election

4-is featured prominently in the bio's of several notables

5-today has a growing membership

6-is supported by at least three third-party reliable sources

Being a notable subject, worthy of the article originally authored by me (and I've written about 115+ different subjects, most Puerto Rico-related), it's a matter of improving the sourcing of the article, recognizing that sourcing electronically newspaper articles from the late 1970's and early 1980's about PRSSA, and its well-covered annual conventions) is rather difficult. Pr4ever (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks sources, and still lists unreliable sites as references. The links you have provided help improve this violation of our guidelines and policies, so you can add them, and I'll withdraw my nomination. I, however, will still tag the article for cleanup. --Agüeybaná 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Puerto Rican Statehood movement (why isn't there such an article?). A more practical choice would be to Merge into Political status of Puerto Rico--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is El Nuevo Dia's website an unreliable source??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.85.80 (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this nomination, the only references used were the organization's official website and Facebook. --Agüeybaná 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now it has more sites, any other reasons thatcaused the nomination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.176.166 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, as the original author of this article to which several of you have provided added value, either by incorporating additional facts and insights or by calling attention to the article's shortcomings, it's time to focus our attention to improving the article and making it comply more with wiki policies through additional research and sourcing. My appreciation to all who have contributed, one way or the other, but now it's time to move on. Pr4ever (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, well then the nomination should now be retired? unless there is something else the needs to be fixed immediately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.180.187 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.176.198 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

"

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (event)[edit]

Once again, another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. This event apparently isn't/wasn't even held after 2006. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the project page of WikiProject Neopaganism in Deletions and merges section. —— Becksguy (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of references, but have not expanded the article from them, but that should be easier enough for someone to do that is more familar with the subject. Fosnez (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Better, but I'm still not convinced that it is notable enough. Both refs are about this event as an upcoming event. There's no indication from them that the event actually happened, and if it did, whether it was notable. Anyone can get an announcement of a planned event in sites/publications like these, but it still doesn't indicate whether something notable actually happened. Give us something reliable and after-the-fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of regional Burning Man events. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge/redirect to List of regional Burning Man events. I would like to keep this, but the refs are just too borderline. They seem to be more event listings than articles, so I reluctantly agree with nom. Even one good RS would tip me over into the keep kamp, although I couldn't find any. All the content will be in the merge article, and this article can be restored if it becomes more notable. — Becksguy (talk) 10:51, 29 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 List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Massive[edit]

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim/Merge/redirect per User:Scientizzle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:19, 29 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 List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EmoTAZ[edit]

Stil another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per User:Scientizzle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 29 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 Non consensus Keep - although having come to that conclusion on the basis of procedure the strength of the arguments are more leaning to keep because evidence of notability seem to be provided by Eastman. --VS ^talk 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Nwadiora[edit]

Non notable radio host. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:08, 21 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, —αlεx•mullεr 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Google News for newspaper articles that seem to be evidence of notability, as well as Google Scholar --Eastmain (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If anything, just barely meets the WP:PROF notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs some work Dreamspy (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - although this person could be notable being a radio host, this Article will have to go about saying so better. For the life of me I cannot locate his book even though an ISBN is given. And EL #2's context does little to state notability of the Article subject. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The book is at OCLC [59], held in about 100 US libraries. that;'s not all that many for a short academic book on this topic (160 p.)--that makes it an introductory text or reading, not a work of scholarship. Whether he is notable otherwise is another matter, and I have no opinion there DGG (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subbanna Ekkundi[edit]

Notability concerns, lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the time I had finished reading the article, I couldn't figure what he had done. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He actually seems notable, though the article didn't really explain it. I expanded it a little, based on the full article on him in a standard Indian reference book, held in several hundred US libraries: on google books, conveniently, and in English, also conveniently. Addhoc, I suppose this meets your objection? DGG (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, consider my nomination withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) clear majority SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Run Skate Park[edit]

Non-notable skate park. Georgia guy (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it non-notable? It's 27,000 square feet. What do you consider notable? (BTW, I'm new to discussions, so please forgive me if I'm not following etiquette.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AZard (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Size doesn't matter. A single local news article does little to show that it is notable outside of it's area. What appears to be a blog, or at least a site run off user submissions is not typically seen as a reliable source. So far all we have is that it exists and it's 27,000 square feet. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is big, but it isn't really notable (see WP:N). If it is kept, it's going to need a lot of work. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources, the prime criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has many stories on this topic. [60] [61] [62][63]. There's no "notability in a local area means it's not notable" clause in WP:N. Nominating an article for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation is disruptive to improving articles and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - afore mentioned papers satisfy WP:N and WP:V. When you find the 'Local' clause in WP:N you can point it out to me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources in an AfD don't mean squat if they're not included in the article. There is still only one source that would be considered reliable. Not enough. The article still does not go any further that it exists. Noting to show why it is any more notable than any other skate park in the area. DarkAudit (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no "If the otherwise reliable sources that demonstrate notability aren't placed in the article then magically the sources don't exist" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article, that thing we're all talking about, only has sources that says it exists, and only one of those is suitable. And AfD is not an article. No matter what is claimed in here, there has been absolutely no improvement to the article itself, which still fails guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article topic is what we're talking about. From WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't say "an article", but "a topic." We go by reliable sources to indicate notability, not an AfD nom claiming "it's not notable" when reliable secondary sources indicate the opposite.--Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those sources are pay-to-view or discussion topics. going by whay I could gather from the teasers, the first two don't go any further than it's coming, it's now there, and it's big. Any new project will generate articles of this nature. There is nothing there to show that it is still notable once the newness wore off. DarkAudit (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if they're pay-per-full-view. They could even be print-only and still be reliable sources. All go beyond WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", ie passing mentions, directory listings, etc.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability isn't all that's at issue. Two citations that could be about any project anywhere at the time they were going up. Articles that are as local as you get. That is not significant coverage. That leaves one article and a discussion board about neighbors concerned about noise. That is also not significant coverage. That is not enough to make this skate park any more notable than any other. That has still not been shown in spite of all the discussion in here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're simply ignoring WP:NOTABILITY. Just because you think The Atlanta Journal-Constitution could've written "about any project anywhere" doesn't change the fact they wrote about this topic. In fact, all skate parks are not written about by reliable sources as this one has. That reliable source deemed this skate park notable (probably because if its size) and in turn WP:N deems it notable. "Local" doesn't equate to "not significant coverage" in WP:N. If you wish it did, you need to bring that up to WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to delete a specific article topic based on your desired criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different than any other paper writing about any new construction project. The Post-Gazette writes about new attractions at Kennywood. The Dominion-Post writes about the new Kroger in town being the largest grocery store in the state. They're covered once or twice as they're being built, and that's it. That's what you're presenting here. It's a news story for a day or two in one town. There doesn't appear to be anything else beyond the one article about noise since the place opened. That is not the significant press coverage asked for. There is still no proof that it is in any way notable above and beyond any other skate park. Just being built and covered as such by the local paper does NOT constitute significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're are simply not liking the secondary sources having written about his park. In fact, being built, opened and covered by reliable independent sources DOES constitute notability under WP:N. You only brought up a Kroger as if that means that all skate parks are written about by secondary sources. It doesn't. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found this notable enough to write several articles about it. If you don't like it passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, your opinion is allowed, but it's simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I looked at the sources you provided, and I think they are not up to the coverage standard of WP:N. Why do you think I have something against that paper? Their coverage is not significant enough to rise to the level of an encyclopedia article. Covering a construction project like this is a dime a dozen, and every newspaper in the country does the same. I'm trying to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the coverage you've provided is nothing special or unique to that park compared to any other attraction in the area or the rest of the country. The AJC is reliable and verifiable, but not significant here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not bringing a straw man into this, are you? There has not been a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to keep this by anyone. Just because you view the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces about this skate park as similar to coverage of other skate parks by other sources is irrelevant. In no where of WP:NOTABILITY does it say anything like "If the secondary independent sources coverage is similar to other coverage about other similar topics, then the secondary sources can be ignored." If you want such a provision, make that case on the WP:NOTABILITY talk page. Just because there are other projects similar doesn't in any manner mean this topic should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I was trying to avoid that argument myself. If I brought up other AfD's, like the pool in Vancouver that had it's article deleted, I'd probably be setting myself up for that. Papers like the AJC, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the L.A. Times, etc., cover stuff like this all the time when the project is going up and is just opening. It's not unique. It's not special. And it's usually a canned article supplied by the location's PR folk. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm not opposed to the article remaining, IF it is substantially expanded with reliable and verifiable sources. However, in its current state, it's nothing more than a stub (as I have just recently tagged it) and serves no purpose to the encyclopedia.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Several newspaper articles should satisfy the basic criteria of verifiable information. It is sometimes hard to draw the line between what constitutes significant coverage and what doesn't, but in this case I'm leaning toward keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be fairly notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple articles in the AJC. Satisfies WP:N.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a major newspaper and certainly constitutes a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Chuck (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, yes. Significant coverage? That's up for debate. The coverage cited is nothing special. Every major (and minor) newspaper covers projects like this when they're going up or opening. The citations given are a dime a dozen. What we're left with beyond that is an article about noise complaints. That's *not* notable. That's life in a large metropolitan area. DarkAudit (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, what constitutes "significant" coverage is highly subjective. But we have at least 4 AJC articles about Brook Run (not merely mentioning Brook Run in the context of some other topic), even if they are short articles. That meets my threshold for significance. Chuck (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. Addhoc (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech driving force GT[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep, but it needs a LOT of work. I've offered to clean up the "weasel words" and get this in line with styling convention. I got over 259,000 Google hits for it. It's a major product with the HUGE endorsement of the Gran Turismo franchise and it's produced by a major manufacturer. Heck, I'm using a Logitech wireless mouse as I write! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a pretty good stub out of it. Voting for a full-blown keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, nice work! Addhoc (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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