Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers (website)[edit]

Non-notable website. Page has no citations to anything other than the website itself, Google search of related terms reveals only two results. Both are from the official website. No indication of discussion in notable, reliable third-party publications. Gromlakh (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a candidate for db. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but another user (not the author) deleted the speedy template. I figured it would just be easier to take it here. Gromlakh (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's been cited by a few reliable sources, e.g. Deseret News,Topeka Capital-Journal, but they're not really endorsing it. If someone can find an article about this site (rather than just referencing it) I'd consider reversing my position. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no articles where the-numbers.com is the subject. No reliable sources to establishnotability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is not Google, and Google is all that's needed here. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:N and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Wood[edit]

NUMEROUS people on the talk page have pointed out this woman is NOT NOTABLE. The only reason this is still here is because User: C S has made it his personal crusade to defend this page. Johnnygood (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, I would be open to persuasion if it could be shown that she was a notable mathematician rather than just a promising one. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~Probably~~ notable within the world of competitive mathematics (I never knew such a thing existed, but that's what we're here for) for her various prizes and fellowships; would definitely pass WP:BIO if she were (mutatis mutandis) an athlete or musician. Tevildo (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Upgrade per dtrebbien) Tevildo (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Non mathematics people don't understand that MathCounts, International Mathematical Olympiad, and the Putnam Competition are extremely difficult tests for the respective groups of test takers. To have done well in all three is extremely notable. It's not just a sign of a promising career. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:43 2008 January 20 (UTC)

Johnnygood isn't a sock puppet account, is it? The only contributions were to nominate Melanie Wood for deletion.

Keep Article contains ample references to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Mrs. Wood is a future star mathematician. It is a notable biography. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not yet notable purely for her academic record, but clearly notable for the competition record and the "firsts" as a female. And, in reply to the nominator, ONLY ONE person on the talk page has said that the subject is not notable. The other discussions concern categorisation and the length of the article, not notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a researcher in mathematics she may be promising but not yet notable, but nonetheless she is notable for her quite unusual history even if not for research she's published so far. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Michael Hardy. Ubermichael (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable. Also, possible one-purpose account is nominator. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a cursory Google news search uncovers a lot of coverage in addition to the sources already cited. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JANJAN[edit]

Not notable for inclusion. WordMachine (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most sources are in Japanese (which I can't read) but it appears to have support from Fujisoft [1]. If kept, suggest moving to "Japan Alternative News for Justices and New Cultures". Pburka (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could anyone explain in what way this newspaper is not notable? Need more references? I created the article basically to get rid of a red link. It can be expanded more seriously. But that's another story. Also, since JANJAN appears to be the official name, the renaming doesn't make much sense. It would be like renaming GNU to Gnu is not Unix. -- Taku (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the thing is, we have no idea whether it is notable or not, and the article certainly doesn't say that it is, or why it is. Is it a notable newspaper? Or is it just another website? We need independent sources confirming notability, as discussed at WP:NOTE. --Stormie (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a bit. More can be added. Is that enough? -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename and expand to Ken Takeuchi. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JANJAN is one of the most known online citizen journalism sites in Japan, largely due to its founders being reputable figures (a former mayor of a large city and a former chief editor at Asahi Shimbun). --Saintjust (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third-party sources affirming notability can be provided. As it stands, this is possibly even a candidate for speedy deletion, as it does not even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have speedily deleted this page, somehow not spotting this AfD, for this I apologize to you all. I've closed the DRV as overturning myself. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No hard feeling. -- Taku (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as highly notable in Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Riviera (Beijing)[edit]

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. I Poeloq (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable community/housing development/residential complex. Shawis (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTiny villages in UK/Ireland are noteworthy. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a village, that would be one thing. Gated communities, though, are not the same thing, and not inherently noteworthy. Mango juice^talk 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)[edit]

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of course it exists, i've been there. That doesn't mean it passes WP:N. It is one of many "luxury" gated communities in China, of which literally hundreds or even thousands exist. Poeloq (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - and we should have an article on every one of them that is this large if we have reliable sources about it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable community/housing development/residential complex. Shawis (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added sources and claims of notability. Turns out it is in fact notable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those sources are not reliable (forum, bbs) and do not make it more notable. One is a guide to eating and shopping written by people in Shenzhen and the other is a rental advert. How does this make it notable? Poeloq (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources taken as a whole make it clear that it is a notable subsection of a city containing notable buildings used for commerce. Being in China means there will be fewer English language references on the web. Here are some of our articles about parts of Newark:
- Newark Penn Station, a railroad/subway/bus transportation hub
- Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link
- Newark Light Rail
- Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal
- Newark Bay
- Newark Public Schools
- Newark Museum
- Newark Public Library
- Seton Hall University
- Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey
  - There is no reason not to have articles on named parts of cities. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This is true, but this isn't a "part of town", but a commercial property development. The links you included are all on the verge of being deleted, I deleted one already as it could pass as spam (a link to a real estate dealer). The links you mention above have nothing in common with the property mentioned. Again: This is a commercial property development, a gated community. Not a part of town. Poeloq (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm aware that it is "a development by a private company". That does not mean it is not also a part of a city. See Military Park (NCS station) and Military Park and Prudential Center. People live there. people work there, people shop there. It is as notable as a major shopping mall, or a neighborhood of 1000 houses. Real estate developers are not inherently a bad source of information. Look up spam. It does not mean what you think it means. You appear to demean anything commercial. Being commercial neither indicates non-notability nor a poor source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Riverside Garden is not a park like Military Park, even if the name might imply such a thing. This is due to marketing strategies Chinese property developers take. Riverside Garden is also not the home to a major sports team as the Prudential Center is, which makes it notable. I am also not against commercial things, the exact opposite actually. I am just trying to clarify that this is not a town neighbourhood, it is a gated community for rich Chinese and expats. Also, the sources you give are either not verifiable (forums) or not independent (advertisement). I myself live in such a gated community in China. It is like saying that a road is notable because it contains houses, offices and shops - it doesn't work like that. Poeloq (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<A road like [[Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey? I think our differences lie mostly in believing Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about important things versus believing Wikipedia to be the "sum of all knowledge". I see nothing wrong with articles about major roads that have houses, offices and shops. It is verifiable and useful. "Notable" is just shorthand for verifiable and useful, in my opinion. And the facts in our article on Riverside Garden are verifiable and useful. A foreigner being told of a meeting at Riverside Garden can now look it up and see what "Riverside Garden" is. We are better than Google. We make the internet not suck. What is the most useful thing we can do with regard to this article for a reader who types "Riverside Garden" into Wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vision for Wikipedia is nice, but it isn't intended that way. You might want to check Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and other related areas of WP:NOT where it clearly states that we don't intend to be a guidebook, directory or a help in conducting business. That's the way it is. Poeloq (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. I think it plain that Wikipedia is meant to have articles on all named and verifiable communities of 1000 or more units. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we agree to disagree :) . Let's see what other editors have to say. Poeloq (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything that has a verifiable existence should have an article. WP:NOT is wrong. Remember, "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive--we are not obligated to care what it says. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!') 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, you've just used one of the things listed over at WP:ATA, namely Wikipedia should be about everything. Also pointing out that policy can be ignored, is also not a valid argument in an AfD discussion. Poeloq (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's just my point. It is my position that Wikipedia SHOULD be about everything; thus, my argument is perfectly valid. And yes, policy can and should be ignored. All it is is a description of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past. It is not a set of rules that must be followed in the future. The choice of the word "policy" as the appellation was unfortunate, and it has confused many a well-meaning user. But, the fact of the matter is that on Wikipedia, policy is not prescriptive and there is no obligation to "follow" it simply because "it's policy". You do what's right, whether it accords with policy or not. So don't argue based on policy--argue based on what's right for the project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the link I quoted? I know that policy can and should at times be ignored. However, in an AfD discussion there are certain things that need to be quoted and used to base a decission on, otherwise we could just abolish AfD all together - which I am sure you would favor. Poeloq (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it many times. It's irrelevant. All it is is a list some people put together that amounts to "I don't agree with these arguments, so I've decided you shouldn't use them." That's all it is. And I'm not talking about "ignoring policy"--because there is nothing to ignore in the first place! The word "policy" has a different meaning on Wikipedia than it does in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, actions follow policy: if they don't, then people should change their actions so they do follow policy. However, on Wikipedia, policy follows actions. If actions are not in line with "policy", then, then "policy" needs to be changed to reflect that fact. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- great points above. I feel it is right to keep this article. The place exists, the article's useful and helpful, can be improved to be more so, and why not? SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In what way is the article useful? And there are a lot of things that exist but don't facilitate an own article. BTW, don't be confused by the name: this is not a park or area of town. Poeloq (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a street directory. Whether we should have articles for every neighborhood in Newark (and Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey is about a neighborhood, not the eponymous street) is another question, best decided at another AfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generic subdivision; little better than spam or advertising. Gamaliel (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neighborhood, certainly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been demonstrated, despite efforts to find mentions in various listings and forum threads. --Stormie (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a notable development in China - that one where the houses and towns imitate western-style architecture and layout. You would think you were in a suburb in London or Paris or the US, except it is for rich people in China instead. Can anyone remember that one? I've tried to find an article on it and failed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be Beijing World Park, though I was thinking of something more than this. Maybe it is in Shanghai instead? I think that was it - the "Paris Gardens" development. No article though. Another example of a notable city area is 798 Art Zone. I don't think this one being discussed here cuts it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found it! Thames Town. See here and here.
    "Complete with cobbled streets, mock Tudor houses and English-style boutiques, Thames Town is one of nine satellite towns planned for the greater Shanghai area, with German, Italian and Spanish towns in development."
    Glad I wasn't imagining it! Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass the bar for neighborhoods. Likely fails WP:RS. Almost every neighborhood has news coverage but that does not mean that they are all notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is irrelevant. All that matters is verifiable existence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1000 units - Tiny villages in UK/Ireland are deemed noteworthy. A larger community in a far off place (to me) must also be noteworthy. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources presented in the article are not reliable, and we need to see some reason why this development project is notable. We need this standard for gated communities / housing subdivisions, because there is a major potential for advertising abuse here. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, if you have a problem with the sources given, the solution is not to delete but rather to find better sources. Second, as I have explained several times here, notability is irrelevant. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kurt, we all know your radical opinion on deletion and consensus. This is why your RfA failed back in 2005. Consesus in the communuty is that notability is relevant. Secondly, other/reliable sources on this subject are hard to find. I did a search in Chinese, however could only really find promotional information and press releases plus the odd rental offer. Poeloq (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Kurt, lack of adequate sourcing is a good reason to delete: see WP:DEL#REASON. If there is good reliable information out there, the article can stay. But none has been shown and it seems highly unlikely to. If you want to dispute that you're going to need to find some good sources. Mango juice^talk 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really, people. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Corporal, that's not too useful. Do you mind elaborating on your opinion on why you think it should be deleted? Poeloq (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. It strikes me as utterly uninteresting and irrelevant to anyone who does not live within 100 yards of it, and lacks any source suggesting that it is any more interesting than the next community 100 yards in the other way. Its entry is largely defended on the grounds that the subject exists, and under that criterion I won't support it until the Wiki has an independently-authored article on my shoe. It is pretty much inconceivable that it could perform any role which would make an entry on it useful to a reader, researcher, or seeker of knowledge, and anyone who is curious about where it is - perhaps hankering for some root beer, or Tostitos - would be far better served by a map. Or, in the shorter version - really, people. Delete. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that reasoning is a lot more comprehendable ;) Poeloq (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RealCycle Network[edit]

The subject of this article consists of a number of local Yahoo! Groups (web forums) founded half a year ago. No independent sources, notability not established. High on a tree (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, especially to the worldwide Wikipedia audience. Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and I couldn't find any on Google News. [2]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication reliable sources to substantiate notability. Web results aside from their web site and this wiki article are blogs etc. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal Administration[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Possible candidate for transwikification, though I'm not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first words are that it's an instructional article, which Wikipedia is not, and it pauses halfway down for a couple of commercials, for which it is possibly a WP:COATRACK. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udo's Choice Food Pyramids[edit]

Non-notable quackery. Delete Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I couldn't find any reliable sources that satisfy WP:V requirements. --Goobergunch|? 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per Goobergunch. The only source is a commercial site. Both WP:V and WP:N are problems. Tim Ross 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Udo Erasmus has a PhD in nutrition so he isn't a crank, and there are many reliable sources that mention him [3]. Why not merge this article to main article about Udo Erasmus? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JoshuaZ. I created the article. I haven't found third-party sources mentioning the Food Pyramids specifically, but there are scientific articles about the health benefits of essential fatty acids, providing support for ideas on which the Food Pyramids are based. I've put a link to an example of one such article at Talk:Udo Erasmus. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no problem with a merge as long as it can be written in a scientific point of view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is not an edit-on-demand service. If you want this content merged elsewhere, please just do it. Then come back and recomment redirect to target-x. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this AfD is closed as "merge", I'm willing to do the editing work of merging it. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re "delete per nom" votes: The nominator has stated in a comment "I have no problem with a merge as long as it can be written in a scientific point of view.".

Furthermore, the nomination statement says "quackery", definitions of which include the concepts of fraud, dishonesty, pretending to be a doctor, ignoring scientific findings etc. I do not believe that Udo Erasmus has done any of that, and no evidence of such has been presented either here or in the articles about him; in fact, he cites scientific findings in his book. Some of his ideas may be unproven or partially unproven; others are established scientific fact; but discussing speculative or (as-yet-)unproven ideas does not constitute fraud. The nomination itself could perhaps be considered a BLP violation. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Coppertwig. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No sources, no reason it should stand alone. Merging is not essential: the article on Udo looks in pretty good shape, but I don't object to the idea either. Mango juice^talk 19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHEMA Bible Training Center[edit]

A very nicely written advertisement, but an advertisement nonetheless. The only source cited in this article which is not from the organisation's own website, is on the site of the designer of the new basketball court - and as such is not properly independent. I Googled a bit but found only more of the same: uncritical puffery based presumably on press releases, comments from alumni and the like. One namecheck in Google News, and that's ab out it. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge relevant information into Kenneth E. Hagin. This one was tough for me, as I know this school is extremely well known in the Charismatic world. However, after looking for secondary sources and finding none and coming up with only blogs and churches who endorse the school on Google, I simply cannot vote keep on an article about an unaccredited school. Redfarmer (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redfarmer: I think that Word of Faith might be a better target article than Hagin's personal entry, but I agree that this organization fails WP:ORG in its own right. Tevildo (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redfarmer: I prefer Kenneth E. Hagin as a target but have no objection to Word of Faith. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not an edit-on-demand service. Merge does not require WP:AFD, it just requires WP:EDIT. It is not very fair to direct the closing admin to select from several possible targets recommended and to decide what content in such a long article should be merged. Closing administrators are ideally not very familiar with the subject of the article, and interested editors should not tell an admin close this and now go edit it in this way. Be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself and then say merge already done, redirect this to target-x. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few respected editors have taken offense at my comment above. I did not intend to offend anybody, and I don't think I said anything inherantly uncivil; but all I wanted to say is please do not add more "Merge per aboves", as the merge recommendations are incomplete in that they do not say WHAT to WHERE. Please be specific, and if you are inclined; do the bold thing. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. If admins aren't prepared to close AfD's properly, they shouldn't close them at all. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps you'd be willing to share a little more on this? I am very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject. I am all ears, mon ami.~~ JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on appropriate talk page. Tevildo (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakj keep a merge can be discussed at thew article talk page. DGG (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with Hagin's theology, but it is widely supported in charismatic circles. Accordingly, I would have thought that an institute training people in it (though unaccredited) was notable. Problems over sourcing etc, require tagging, not nominating as AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with that, in that the place clearly fails WP:ORG due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Then don't delete it, Guy, fix it. As Peterkingiron observed, this place is very notable in charismatic circles, which make up a very large segment of the U.S. population. Plus their classes are transferable to accredited schools, so they are notable in and of themselves, not just as part of some other person, place or thing. I recommend you at least try to find those independent sources - I guarantee they're out there. Goo2you (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, emphasis on the former. Nothing really encyclopedic there, nor anything much to back it up. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shaloob[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. No Google hits other than this very article. Article says he has gained significant media attention for his plan to socialize the American Health Care System. Surely Google would return said "significant media attention" but unfortunately, Google does not. Plus, I live in Mississippi and have never heard of this guy. ALLSTAR ^echo 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even any Ghits on "Robert Shaloob", fails WP:N & WP:V. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:BIO#Politicians (yes, that statement was redundant). To attempt to find any links to RS reporting of the subject, I located the website of Green Party of Mississippi, which contradicts multiple statements within this article (candidates for 2008 not yet selected, first Green Party candidate elected to office in Mississippi was in 2004, so others have been on ballot before, etc). Also, website of Mississippi Secretary of State does not show this name on any searches that I attempted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert notability. This is a contested proposed deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax, google hits are mirrors only. Addhoc (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bio. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, and apparently incorrect. I suppose he might be running to be selected as a candidate by the Green party, but that would be even less notable than simply being chosen as a candidate. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:V. --Beloved Freak 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete - obvious non-notablility or verifiability. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax given the evidence here. Montco (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briglin[edit]

Previously tagged for speedy deletion for notability concerns. However, it does seem to have been written about and may claim notability. Procedural nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of web hits. Seems to be a notable pottery. I've added some references. Pburka (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I Trokia Pottery, Poole Pottery are listed, why not Briglin Pottery, they are very similar except Briglin seems to have been lost in the record books and there is very little information anywhere to be found about the pottery which closed in 1990 appart from AA's book. Wikipedia is exactly the right place to list inforamtion about Briglin. please list it here. BR alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy8888 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Independent and the Guardian think that this pottery is notable enough for them to write obituaries of the founders, so it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - concur with User:Phil Bridger. Obits from two independent sources on founders is enough to meet notability bar -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooks (actor)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable third party sources to verify notability. Nv8200p talk 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't verify that he had a role in Doctor Who (as the Doctor, nonetheless!). Fails WP:V. Pburka (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's because all this individual has been in is YouTube video (one that parodied Doctor Who) and student film. Fails notability, WP:RS, and doesn't even have enough notability to get a listing in IMDB. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Actor roles have consisted of youtube clips -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I don't think he's claiming to have been in 'doctor who', it apears to be an independant thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.150.54 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~. Is not youtube the next frontier of media? This is where out stars will be comming from next! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.150.54 (talk)
~~Don't Delete~~. I have seen him in many theatrical peformances in and around norwich.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.150.54 (talk)

comment Only one !vote please. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was speedy redirect, nom withdrawn non-admin closure--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgiest, the movie (criticism)[edit]

~~Article consists of nothing more than NPOV and OR work that was repeatedly excised from Zeitgeist, the Movie. Main issue that it is NPOV and OR has not been addressed.~~ Nevermind, article was redirected while I was typing this. Gromlakh (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Catholic Church[edit]

Seemingly non notable group or sect of a few tens of people. No notability asserted through reliable, third-party sources; could even be an autobiography or primary research publication... Raistlin (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. I can find no references that don't come back here or to their own website. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The leader, Lucian Pulvermacher, gets quite a few web hits and seems to be referred to by reputable sources, e.g. university course curricula[4]. However I'm having trouble finding any really good references to this group. Pburka (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom - violates notability, soapbox or advocacy, reliable sources, autobiography, original research, verifiability, notability is not inherited, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too dam interesting. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this is not complete fiction, and it doesn't seem to be complete fiction, then it's more interesting and useful than 90% of what ends up in AfD - someone someday might even look it up. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Beaver Island State Park. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway[edit]

PROD removed. There is no indication that this highway and its intersections are notable; the rest of the article is about Beaver Island State Park which already has its own article. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beaver Island State Park. Reference routes are not notable by default and, as the nominator outlined, this one can be adequately covered in the article about the park. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random reference routes generally aren't notable. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the park. Routes assigned numbers by the state should be mentioned somewhere, and there's enough to say that it shouldn't redirect to the list of reference routes. --NE2 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the park. Not being notable enough for an independent article in no way means that it's not notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beaver Island State Park, as suggested by most others already, unless someone brings here some compelling evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 third-party sources, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise plays for lease. KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro's Fly Ten Year Reunion[edit]

A non-notable play. It was written/performed in a high school and has never been performed elsewhere. The only coverage of it seems to be the high school's newspaper. Metros (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I highly doubt that enough sources exist for this to pass WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A one-off school play can't be notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article. School play, non-notable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amdram is inherently non-notable and amdram by amateur playwrights doubly so. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. A high school student written play is noteworthy, and should be documented for other students to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdrama (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notableGwynand (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. The article states, "RHST will also lease the show to other schools who are interested in performing the show." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shania92 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The willingness to make money off the show is a reason to keep the article? Metros (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. If author wants to post it for others to read, post it somewhere else like LiveJournal or MySpace or one of a myriad of writer's forums on the internet or in a local magazine; but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as it doesn't meet WP:N. Doc Strange (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable play. Terraxos (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will burns[edit]

Not notable. Worked for Obama, and he is currently RUNNING for a state office in Illinois. Never held any office. This falls short of notable. Anyone can run for office by filling out a form, so that won't fly. Pharmboy (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As explained above, does not assert notability. Probably qualifies for CSD A7. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but chose to AFD solely because of the potential turmoil in trying to speedy a political candidate. Felt it better to air it very publicly and get others input, and a few more days won't hurt wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BLP, no sources means delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article Will burns is a copy of this article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Will burns has been PRODded - a race to see which process wins! JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom.Aatomic1 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. W. Griffin[edit]

Subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page has been tagged with the "Notability" template since June 2007 and no attempt has been made to assert the subject's notability. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence of notability--how senior was he in the NHS? Lacks WP:RS. JJL (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently an accomplished administrator, but no indication of notability. Seems to have been added as part of a genealogy project. Also delete linkes from Michael Griffin and Griffin (surname). Pburka (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability within the NHS and as a emissary to the middle east (if he was instrumental in expanding hospitals in two countries, I'd say that's pretty substantial). Recommend tagging for cleanup, expansion, and more reliable sources, but not deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably notable, if the article would actually give some references--and information about just what his importabnt NHS positions were. DGG (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It reads like an obituary from a newspaper, so it might be a copyright problem. If that can be sorted out and sources for notability found then keep, otherwise delete. --Bduke (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:RS, WP:N and WP:BIO. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clasic example of WP:MEMORIAL. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BulletProof Messenger[edit]

Unsigned band, lots of claims of notability but no references. A quick googling shows lots of myspace, etc. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time and fails wp:band. Pharmboy (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sourcing I could find was this Ney York Sun article and the band is being used as an example for SellaBand, so the article is really only half about them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind the deletion states this is an "unsigned band", which is untrue, since it is already recording for SellaBand (which is the equivalent of a label). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.92.74 (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the claims in the article are untrue, or greatly exaggerated as well. This band never "toured" with any bands. They have in fact, never really "toured" at all; mostly just being lucky enough to win a few local "battle of the bands," and doing "one-off" openings for big name acts at venues in which really any band can open as long as they know the right people and can sell enough tickets. These guys are merely just another unsigned New York rock band with a decent amount of buzz, a handful of big gigs, and egos the size of Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeqtioner23 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band. Gromlakh (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Sellaband is not the equivalent of a label; this band is unsigned. I might have said "weak keep," except I agree that nearly everything in the entry is either untrue or vaguely kinda not really exactly much of anything, in addition to being badly written. Wikipedia is no place for press releases. Hint to band: you'll know you need a Wiki entry when someone you don't know writes one. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlene[edit]

Just another non-notable music journalist, one of hundreds. The article itself isn't much more than a vanity piece with no 3rd party references to her notability. WebHamster 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What he said. Young journalist who isn't notable at this time. Pharmboy (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party verification of notability. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Dreams (record label)[edit]

Non-notable label and blatant spamming/advertising. Lugnuts (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy, not known or notable, vanity piece. Pharmboy (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not EBay. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is dreadfully written and needs attention, which I confess I personally can't give it right now. However, the catalog and company seem real and substantive enough. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kawe Khosrawi[edit]

No assertion of notability beyond that this person exists. No cited works. Google search results returned mirrors back to this article. Except for tags, article has been untouched for nearly two years. DarkAudit (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You probably should have just PRODed the article, and this would be a good example of an article to PROD. Notability can't be verified. Pharmboy (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reference can be found. Fails WP:V as is. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I concur with Pharmboy; PROD is worth trying in cases like this. Mango juice^talk 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not even imply notability. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DTT Surveillance[edit]

There are no provided non-trivial articles about DTT. One of the provided and still available articles doesn't mention DTT until page 2 and the other is just a company press release. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Most of the article seems to come from the corporate web site and so there is no 3rd party verifiability. Seems to fall under the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING JJLatWiki (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this looks like a successful company, but there's no evidence that it's particularly notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn - I went and checked the list of refs given. First two have expired links. Third one to L.A. Business Journal requires a log in (that's a no no). Fourth ref doesn't even mention the subject, and fifth ref from findarticles.com links to this very same Wikipedia article! Sting_au Talk 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually the Securityinfowatch article does mention the subject - about the last 40% of the article is about DTT's products. And requiring a login is most emphatically not an "no-no". However I have found a copy of the first few paragraphs freely available online and fixed the reference in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no requirement that a reference not require a login, or even be online at all. Physical books and newspapers are just fine. Suggest that the references be changed to footnoted cites, with the author, issue, etc. filled in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Only one of the references requires a login. 2 have been removed, so those wanting to keep this article based on those articles have the burden of finding a valid source. Of the remaining 2 references, one mentions the DTT, and the other is a common press release from DTT. For all the boasts, one would expect it to be an easy task of finding non-trivial articles of which DTT is the subject. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, due to a lack of independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I have cleaned up the references in the article. We now have a link to a freely available copy of the start of the LA Business Journal article, which seems to give the subject substantial coverage, and the other article which covers the subject from the bottom of page 2 to the end. I suppose that's just about enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:Dull Aatomic1 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Suggest heavy trim and merge to Closed-circuit television. There's some very interesting sourced material here in the article about point-of-sale integration with video surveillance, which the CCTV article doesn't cover yet. Suggest creating a short paragraph from the material in this article to add to the CCTV article's "More recent developments" section, then redirect. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Spears[edit]

A user tagged this page for deletion but never created the AfD. I'm just completing the nomination. I suppose Lynne Spears' notability could solely be inherited from Britney Spears and might not pass WP:BIO. Spellcast (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep You should have googled for her first, there are hundreds of hits from reliable sources. Did you know she wrote a book? http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20167088,00.html talks about it. There are refs from Access Hollywood, etc. Very notable. Perhaps she would not be notable if her daughter wasn't Britney, but since then she has gotten plenty of press. Pharmboy (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Britney per WP:OUTCOMES; she's just not notable enough for her own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows compelling evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Agree with Pharmboy. The transition to author indicates notability independent from her children. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authors are not automatically notable; have you looked at the guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished authors are not notable. When the book is actually published, then maybe. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her other book was published in 2001, and made into a TV movie. See IMDB link below. Pharmboy (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete d'oh! The very link someone used in this AfD in 'evidence' is actually titled "Lynne Spears's Parenting Book 'Delayed Indefinitely"when she actually publishes it then maybe recreate, but for now it's as yet unwritten and WP:CRYSTAL. Merkinsmum 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CRYSTAL applies to future events that are not verified by reliable sources, and doesn't apply. The book was just delayed, and it is sourced but that is only one note. I don't really give a damn about any the Spears family personally and don't any of them intertaining, but 596,000 ghits of her name tells me that a few probably pass wp:rs. She has an IMDB entry as well, for the made for tv movie (shudder) she wrote and produced, based on her 2001 novel "A Mother's Gift". Again, I don't care for them, but that would seem to pass notability. Existing novel, wrote and produced a movie, and almost 600k other ghits I really don't want to swim through. Pharmboy (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that some of those 596,000 google hits may include references to her daughter, Jamie Lynne Spears. I've seen her name spelled with the e, and thought that her article was the one up for deletion when I came to this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author of two books which I believe sold pretty well: Heart to Heart and A Mother's Gift. --Smashville^BONK! 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that she is notable outside of being Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears's mother. Also, per Smashville. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If it were just that she was Britney's Mom, I'd vote delete because notability is not inherited. However, she herself has been reported on in the grand scheme of Britney's whole fiasco, she's published a couple of books, etc. That's enough notability for her own article. Gromlakh (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For two reasons: first, she seems to have done some notable stuff on her own, probably because of her famous daughter. Second, she is the mother of two noteworthy people, so redirecting to either would would seem inappropriate. Mango juice^talk 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-orders[edit]

This article is on a topic that is ambiguous and unhelpful and its associated category is confusing. The linked and similar article Chivalric orders is poor and needs improving but is easier to understand, and is enough for the topic. --Sannhet (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Chivalric orders~~Delete

~~this will create an improved clearer article~~. Having read the all arguments I do not now believe either article does anything that would not be better than a good edit to articles on individual orders. --Kyndinos (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems reasonable if it will actually help the Chivalric orders article. Gimmetrow 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete - labeling something as a Pseudo-anything should be done in the Article and with Citation! As it currently is operating this Article does not define what makes an Order "Pseudo" and is only causing edit/revert wars galore on every article that gets tagged "Pseudo" for unknown/unexplained reasons. Disclosure- my opinion is the same for the relevent Category deletion request. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has little useful content and seems to be causing more trouble than it is worth. The creator User:Yopie (User talk:Yopie) was PRODed, and legitimately resisted, so this did not work. --Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OK, as I understand, there are two problems. First, that article is causing revert war, but this is not problem of article or me, but this is problem of anonimous vandalism (somebody delete references and in second step he say, that this article is without references. Second, that definition of "self-styled order" is unclear, but this is reason for improvement, not for deletion! If somebody is wise for deletion, why he not improve article? Discussion page of article is only with my edits... It is like somebody want deletion without rational discussion about what is "bad" or "good". As I understand Wiki deletion policy, there must be discussion before deletion. Yopie 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is interesting, Simsek is co-author of article Scottish Knights Templar and probably member of this association, Exit2DOS2000 is co-author of article Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (and probably member of this), Quaerere Verum is co-author Knights Templar in Scotland and I bet for his membership in Scottish Knights Templar. This is very interesting and make big shadow over theirs objectivity. Maybe is this sort of "templars revenge", but I´m not king Philip_IV_of_France :) Yopie 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this isn't a "templars reverange", it is simply editors not wanting Articles we care about getting badly described in a badly defined Article and a similarly badly defined Catagory. If there is something "Pseudo" about a group, put it in the Article and give a Citation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit surprised to see I am credited as co-author :-). The log shows both articles were created by SKT1314 (talk•contribs) and then developed by Steve Zissou (talk•contribs). An interesting conspiracy theory, but this is just about removing an article and a category that do nothing for Wikipedia.--Simsek (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, summary, there are two groups. First, who want delete this article, because is "badly written" - but this is argument for rewriting, adding etc. (Of course, I assume, that this group is connected with "Knight Templars"). Second opinion is, that this article have bad name - I agree, better will be "Self-styled orders" or "Revived orders" or so.Yopie 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Why do you insist that we are Knights Templar simply because we disagree with you? I kindly ask that you please stop making this kind of statement, it is not helping you put across your point of view. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The idea that the delete argument is being driven by what the article describes as "the extinct order of Knights Templar" is a wonderful oxymoron, and is the weakest possible argument for retaining the article.--Quaerere Verum (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete Pseudo is a really bad definition for anything and is bound to cause trouble. Chivalric orders should be developed instead. It is not suprising the article creator Yopie (talk • contribs) - difficult to follow due to lack of proper signatures - should oppose deletion, but the argument for no deleting is difficult to follow. --Simsek (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing article with badly described category. --Alithea (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Probably rename - The real probelm is that the article Chivalric orders is a poor one, being little more than a list. This article would be suitable as a section in that article, explaining that certain other "orders" are properly "pseudo-orders", being self-appointed rather than derived from a monarch. If Chivalric orders had some encyclopaedic content (beyond the list), I would say merge, but until there is something worth merging it to, I have to suggest rename. This raises the question of what to rename to - perhaps Invented orders of chivlary. Subject to this the article is a reasonable one that merely needs a lilte cleaning up. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be shown current name is used. Rename or merge if not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pseudo" is a bad definition for anything. It will lead to a lot of misunderstanding. Issues raised by it can be developed in the article Chivalric orders or in the articles in the orders which will need individual discussion. --Dikkat (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pseudo orders" is a concept related to chemical engineering, mathematics and computer science. Martintg (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I got the category deleted last week, but it came back. It was a speedy delete, so I don't think it was recorded. For me pseudo has always had a pejorative connotation. I looked it up in the Cambridge Dictionaries Online where it is defined as "prefix MAINLY DISAPPROVING not real; pretended:pseudo-religious; a pseudo-intellectual". I'm sure that's not what it's creator intended, but that's the subtlety of the English language for you. That's why I believe this article and its associated category should go. --Frank Ness (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an argument for renaming, rather than for deletion. I suggested one alternative name above. Can any one suggest somethign better? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet; I do not agree. This is an unecessary description, difficult to interpret, adding nothing. Get rid of it. --Sannhet (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a fork too many. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous (rapper)[edit]

Arguably insufficiently notable. I PRODded the article hoping for second opinion but the author (legitimately) deleted it so none was offered, hence bringing it here for discussion instead. Some association with Chamillionaire but I do not believe own article is warranted. Also in dispute over the name "Famous" so something would need doing to disambiguate. Previously went by the name Lil' Ken (various spellings); Lil' Ken article was speedily deleted earlier today and this appears to have replaced it (currently Lil' Ken is a redirect I put there). Ros0709 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I noticed the claim of notability was that he was included on some mix tapes. Pharmboy (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely difficult to do Google searching for a rapper with this name -- it seems as though all rappers are famous -- but on the balance of probabilities, and internal evidence in the article as cited by User:Pharmboy above, I believe this doesn't meet WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a very notable rapper and has been featured on one of the most well-known releases of 2007 (Ultimate Victory) as well as many notable mixtapes (Mixtape Messiah 2, Mixtape Messiah 3, etc. which have their own articles). --Josh1billion (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not explain rapper's notability. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway town[edit]

Total neologism - nobody uses this term. And this list is always going to be OR / indivdual view. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, too London centric (I mean, it misses out Tingley, and I pretty much think "getting 60% of the town demolished" qualifies as been affected. Will ^(talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its used in North Kent as slang. Thats why there all from round London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentmassive (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. Searches of Google News and Google Books indicate use in the UK going back to the 1960s. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My search in Google News gives zero hits. And my search of Google Books suggests that the article might just be allowable if described as "a term prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google News searches default to the past month. Clicking the "all dates"[5] link yields hits in 2003-2007. I might be convinced this can be merged into a paragraph in Commuter town. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHaworth. Meaningless neologism, entirely OR-and-POV dependent. 82.45.248.177 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN neologism per WP:NEO, and as being sufficiently geographically restricted in its usage as to be almost WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term may be used elsewhere but nobody with an interest in the article cares enough to add a reference. The list of towns is totally POV and OR - who can say how these towns have changed as a result of a nearby motorway, or how they would have been different otherwise. Halsteadk (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Ice Cream[edit]

The director and lead actor in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have made the same joke three times in interviews and DVD commentaries - that the two films could be considered part of a "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy, as they both feature gory violence and Cornetto ice-creams. Neither of the films is marketed as being part of this trilogy, though, and no other sources reference it. Until we can do something more than write this up as the one-sentence joke it appears to be, I don't think it needs a full article. Delete. McGeddon (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've thought this also, but as they have referenced it , I think the best course of action would be to merge it into both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz's pages.-Mastrchf91- 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems to be a good place to record the documented themes that run through the films, and to act as a way to link them together (although maybe the latter would be better served by a category). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the only documented themes to date are "they both have blood and they both have a coloured ice-cream"; neither Pegg nor Wright has spoken about it in any greater detail than that, and waiting for the possibility of better interview sources in the future seems excessively speculative. Given that the series only contains two films at the moment, the articles can (and do) simply link to one another, for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but the fact that the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy" has been mentioned by them on more than one occasion does lead me to believe that it is at least notable, and as such deserves some mention.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can note it, but until the available sources give us more than a one-sentence "both these films have blood and ice-cream", it's better noted in each of the two film articles, rather than being an optimistic and entirely unexpandable stub. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I keep saying they have more than 'blood and ice cream' in them. And everything that is repeated is intentional. Thats what links these films as a trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliw136 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we need citable sources confirming that these things are specifically in there as part of the trilogy, and not just as director's trademarks. After all, Arnie says "I'll be back" in virtually every film he's in, but that doesn't link them as part of a series! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to solve this is to accept that its intentional or ask the writers if its intentional. aliw136 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)aliw136 (talk)

Neither option fits with Wikipedia guidelines. "Accept that it's intentional" goes against WP:VERIFY and to "ask the writers if it's intentional" goes against WP:OR. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... There is obviously the third option of "assume that it is unintentional", which is the only place we can go for now, until further interviews tell us more about Pegg and Wright's view of the trilogy. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wiki still have the page for the 'Mediocre American Man' trilogy? There's no formal recognition of the trilogy existing in either Anchorman or The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - but it's still generally accepted that a trilogy exists. If it remains - there's no reason why this shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.40.137 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's just as unsourced as this one; if there's "no formal recognition" that it exists, then it doesn't have any place in an encyclopaedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep an article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rare for a trilogy like this to be recognised as a trilogy, because we're thinking of the Lord of the Rings type trilogy. --aliw136 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw they were being sold together in a set on Amazon. Supposedly when they finish the last film, it'll be sold in a boxset. (and with three different cornettos joke the writers on the DVD commentary.)--aliw136 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this is true fancruft. Just important enough to be mentioned in the articles on the films. A title which is not used is not notable. In fact , the first reference has the writer using a different possible collective title " Three Colours: Cornetto." Possibly when they finish the films, they will give them a title and we can have an article. DGG (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do mention "Three Colours: Cornetto", but they do also describe the series as the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy"-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The films are clearly from two different continuities. The only thing they have in commen is they are made by same people. Example, Waynes World and Austin Powers are also not linked for the same reason. TheProf07 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proponents have not pointed to a single bit of evidence of notability that can be cited. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see this as notable on its own. The best place for it IMHO is a single sentence in both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. No need to merge per se. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unremarkable phrase used in an interview or two with no other usage or currency is not an encyclopedia article. It can go be mentioned briefly in the relevant movie articles if desired. Quale (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Repost of The Crystal Rod among many other good reasons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE CRYSTAL ROD[edit]

Unsourced ditty about a likely NN independent film. Very poorly written, almost unreadable at times. I would almost say speedy delete, except that A7 doesn't cover films and it isn't quite patent nonsense nessacary for G1. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AS VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and (ironically) WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. I think this has been AfD'd before, a week or two back, because I remember making the same joke then. If anyone can find that AfD, it would qualify for speedy G4. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was tagging this with a PROD at the same time as the nominator was entering it into AfD; I endorse the AfD decision since I think this should leave us permanently and it has already been speedied under a different spelling/capitalization, indicating that the author intends to keep going with this. Also note the PROD-tagged The Crystal Rod:Movie Prequel‎, an equally incoherent description. Neither meets WP:N, WP:RS, WP:MOVIE, WP:V and an examination of the creator's contributions leaves little doubt that this is nonsensical in origin. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TimeLETSystems[edit]

Absolutely zero Google hits on this topic. No resources given. No indication that this is term is in use in any significant way. Prod removed by author, without explanation. eaolson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very easy to read, but seems like a WP:NEO perhaps? ie: a term someone made up and hasn't really reached the mainstream. Pharmboy (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Unreferenced and unverifiable. -- RG ² 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Day Celebration[edit]

Non notable 'holiday' relating to basketball. Google doesn't seem to throw up any reliable sources, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated on that front. Prod was removed with the comment "This is a de facto holiday observed throughout the United States, observed accross professions and socioeconomic levels." J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion has been proposed on the basis of its non-importance. As the author, I would argue that the NCAA tournament phenomenon and its effects on the US economy are widely recognized in the wikipedia and the media at large. The movement toward a national holiday is relatively young--seven years and counting. However, if this article is deleted now, the wikipedia community will lose early documentation of a social phenomenon near its inception.

Note also that the article is under construction, and additional supporting references are projected to be added in the coming weeks. Derekdsimmons (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cute idea, probably will be celebrated much like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but unfortunately there isn't enough support for this new holiday yet to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Feel free to prove me wrong, you have about 4-5 days... -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wanting something to be declared a holiday doesn't make it WP:Notable, although I do find it somewhat delicious that someone is proposing an American holiday to honour a Canadian invention. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kraata[edit]

Orignal research plot summary about aspects of a fictional universe. There is no real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research or not, it is not notable outside its own fantasy world. Pharmboy (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (to Rahkshi) or Transwiki to the Bionicle Wiki. I've compared the two, I find that this one is superior to its BS01 Wiki counterpart. . However, Ridernyc, I should point out that there is little to no plot summary in this article.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the entire article is plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or conceivably merge, or perhaps simplify. The meaning of "plot summary" is "plot summary," not "related to the plot". Characters and plot are separate elements of fiction. They are interconnected, but so is everything about fiction. A description of plot characters or setting taken from the work itself is a permitted and possibly encouraged use of primary sources. Summarizing in an objective manner is not original research, but the basic way we write articles at WP. DGG (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft with no real-world relevance. Transwiki if feasible. PKT (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this really is cruft: such a level of nit-picking detail amounts to a how-to or game guide. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: entirely WP:FANCRUFT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion based on failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, East Sussex[edit]

Warren does not appear to be a place in Eastbourne, as a local I am sure I would have heard of it. It certainly lacks nobility. The article is just one line, created by a single user. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There isn't a "Warren" in Eastbourne. There's a tiny hamlet called "Wren's Warren" near Crowborough (which is near Tunbridge Wells, some way from Eastbourne), and there are a few doubtful-looking references to a "Warren, Sussex" from whence one of Thomas Jefferson's ancestors apparently came in the thirteenth century, but nothing else. Tevildo (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it exists, it would fail WP:LOCAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Ordnance Survey site at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/ does not have a listing for Warren, East Sussex. I did, however, find a listing there for Crowborough Warren in East Sussex at grid reference TQ 505 305 . There is a Wikipedia article for Crowborough, but not for Crowborough Warren. --Eastmain (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent detective work - Wren's Warren is at TQ 472 324, incidentally. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as non-existant, based upon evidence given above. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great detective work. If our arbitrary practice is to keep article for even the smallest hamlets, we still have the verifiability requirement. They must actually exist or once have existed, at a definite place. Edison (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz[edit]

This was speedy-tagged as an A7. I declined to delete it on the basis that notability was asserted (although I stated that I wasn't at all sure that it would survive an AfD if brought here). Today, the subject of the article appears to have requested its deletion. Given that it might not clear WP:N as it is, I think the apparent request of the subject should be enough to delete this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please delete this article. See also Talk:Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz. It's preposterous - I already have a page for me in WP-En, no need to create this pitiful stub in the Main namespace. Kpjas (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and the subject. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable - fails A7 Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not a speedy, anyway, since founder of Polish version of WP is at least an assertion of some notability, however non-notable we at WP think founding a language version of WP may be. I'm not sure its enough for WP:N, , but I cannot judge the Linux-related notability which might be enough. DGG (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the founder of Polish Wikipedia is Paweł Jochym - I can't tell from my personal experience - and there's no article about him in WP-En AFAIK. Guerilla times of early Wikipedia were quite exciting and both of us would very well qualify to be mentioned in a section about the early days in the article called History of Polish Wikipedia but a standalone article ? It's someone's little blunder so please go ahead and speedydelete it. Kpjas (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you can delete things about Linux, but please, don't delete this article. You see, Polish Wikipedia is really big Wikipedia, and he is a founder. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a reference (which I found in the Polish Wikipedia article) to confirm the he was Poland's Internet Citizen of the Year 2004. I'm not sure if that's enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article won't be deleted so I delete the AfD template from Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz.

The last conclusion for this AfD is: The article stays on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubek15 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no conclusion to this AFD yet. The above comments are somewhat puzzling. Ros0709 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shared an award in Poland for Internet Citizen of the Year. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject request. Now this is, I think, a fine use of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards clause. He may be a founder of the Polish Wikipedia, but we don't have any reliable sources that say so, and he personally denies it. He shared a prize at an computer expo, but we don't have any evidence that is a notable prize. He may well not meet Wikipedia:Notability (persons) anyway, and, in addition, he asks this article be deleted. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually the source which I added for his Internet Citizen of the Year award does confirm that he was a founder of Polish Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea whether the award is notable in Poland? I always feel uncomfortable deleting articles of foreign subjects whose articles were transwikied here from somewhere else. If the Polish article was deleted first, this would make more sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — sole sourced claim to notability is a single award at an internet and technology expo. Especially given that the subject requests deletion, I don't think there's enough here to satisfy notability guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In deference to User:Kpjas above. (Other reasons apply but I think in cases where someone is almost definitely non-notable and posts a notice such as above, it trumps all others per WP:BLP) Also clear self-referencing issues within the article. Orderinchaos 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the following quote at WP:BLP "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted, and may exercise his or her own discretion in fulfilling that request.". Clearly meets that standard, the notability here is borderline at best, and given the self-request to have it deleted, it seems clear there is not much of a reason to keep it around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Jayron32 and Orderinchaos. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Counter-intuitively, I would not necessarily base the keep / delete decision on the subject's request that it be deleted. He comes across as a modest man but I suspect he'd secretly like the page to stay. After all: he's an admin, could presumably speedily delete it himself now (or in the future), but has not. Ros0709 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of out of process use of admin tools in an area in which you have an interest would be inappropriate. Let's assume he's telling the truth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedying his own article wouldn't be a conflict of interest, would it? Considering Angela Beesley was not just an admin but a board member, and wanted her article deleted, and didn't delete it herself... But, I'm sure she secretly glories in in as well. Yes, absolutely let's look into Kpjas's heart, and not pay any attention to what he actually says. No, wait, that's not sufficiently verifiable, is it? I've got it - let's use divination by tea leaves! I've just drunk a cup of Earl Grey, and, stirring the cup three times widdershins and peering into the dregs ... no, the tea leaves say, he wants it deleted after all, like he says. Sorry. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, please do compare our article Angela Beesley, which has 12 sources, and still has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, mainly for the "she doesn't want it" reason, coming reasonably close each time. Now Poland isn't quite as media-rich and Internet-wired as the UK, but neither is it Chad. I think a little bit more than a paragraph about winning an award can be asked for to prove Kpjas to be undisputably notable, in the face of his not wanting it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although I haven't registered an opinion here as such I did tag the article for speedy delete when it was created on grounds of notability. Given the overwhelming opinion in favour of delete so far I do not think that observation (carefully expressed as a comment, full of weasel words) will in any way affect the result. But I do respect the guy for taking the stance he has. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate assertion of notability. Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kendrick7.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per subject request and (at most) a borderline case of notability. The award may contribute to notability but it certainly doesn't make it seem wrong for us not to have an article. Mango juice^talk 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 being the That Infamous Game again. Yet another group of schoolchildren have thought that they invented this game and have come to Wikipedia to write up their claim to fame. No you didn't invent the game of going from one article to a target by following links. It's ironic that editors mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. In an earlier version of that page we used to have a list of where this infamous game has cropped up. User:Metropolitan90 now maintains it on xyr user page. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikit[edit]

Should probably actually be speedied, but I figured I'd be nice and send it here. Google search returns no results, article is completely devoid of references. Appears to be a game somebody made up the other day. Gromlakh (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why on Earth did you bring it here? I had already prodded it, it would have been deleted via that process. Oh well. I guess it's stuck here now... J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, just realised I gave no delete reason. I'll stick with my prod message- "There is a potentially notable piece of software called 'Wikit', but this is a non notable game made up in school one day."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7, author request [6]. Hut 8.5 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster[edit]

List is completely unreferenced and appears to be a spinoff from Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa. I can't see how this merits its own article. Gromlakh (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Ros0709 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and I would just like to add that the article is referenced at the bottom of the page (the official website's roster page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, L A X 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mancuspia[edit]

This is non-notable and WP:OR. Speculation about a fictional creature in one short story? Yikes! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone with better Spanish than me can find citations that estiblish its notability per WP:FICT, then per the guidelines of WP:FICT this should be merged into Bestiario, the parent article. Trimming any actual WP:OR along the way, if you prefer not to tag such information as needing citation. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many short stories of more notability (Super-Toys Last All Summer Long, for example)) have their own article, but this story does not seem to have any third-party sources...in English. I believe (based on my rudimentary knowledge of Spanish) that like the Jabberwocky, or the titular monster of Lord of the Flies, the Mancuspia may have a literary significance in Spanish literature. If anything this article should be transwiki'd with proper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruttebayo (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete pointless copy-paste fork of existing article `'Míkka >t 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Romania since 2007[edit]

Arbitrary sectioning of Romanian history, with focus on very recent developments; the text is of low quality and simply redundant to existing articles, and there is obviously no scholarly precedent for this. The entire article could fit nicely into the preexisting History of Romania since 1989 (you'll also note that the creation of this article has left the other under an absurd title - "since 1989", but then "since 2007", and until?). Dahn (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nominator's vote. Dahn (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless. bogdan (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ Delete see reasoning below While the nominator is correct that currently the article is simply a copy of the 2004-2007 section of the Romania since 1989 article, this article was just created 25 minutes ago (I believe it was nominated five minutes after its creation). It has the potential to develop into a fairly good article and I believe it would have been best to have waited a few days to see if the creator intended to expand the article before nominating it for afd. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about my other points? Dahn (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the naming is not the best but that can be fixed without a deletion. As for your point about scholarly precedent, the 1989 article was created because in 1989 because communism fell in '89. And while the joining of NATO and the EU are clearly not as momentous as the fall of communism, they are still important events that may merit a different article about the politics after the joining. I believe this to be a good faith nomination and I will most likely !vote delete if nothing is improved, however I believe it probably would have been better to wait a few days and see how the article developed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENT. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no improvement. I agree with Tony on it just being created, I HATE such fast vfd's. I don't really see such a article ever being worthwhile TBH though we should give it a litlte bit of a chance. If it hasn't proved itself to be worthwhile within a week or so then delete it.--Him and a dog 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Malinaccier (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this can be easily incorporated into History of Romania since 1989. actually all the info on this page is copyed from that page. Nergaal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't say that I believe the last three weeks of history in Romania warrant an article. matt91486 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the 1989 article. It's obvious how 1989 is significant enough a year in Romanian history to qualify as an article separation point, but 2007? Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that 2007 was a particularly WP:N year for Romania. JJL (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - that is if there is anythign worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning I have already noted above may dismay that this article was nominated for deletion within five minutes of its creation, but after a day and after notifying the creator of its nomination the article still is just a copy of the 2004-2007 section of Romania since 1989. As such there is no reason that this topic merits its own article at this present time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even that aside, though, history since 2007 of any country will not be substantial enough to warrant an article. Perhaps in the future, Romanian history can be broke into 1989-2007 and Since 2007 as EU membership shapes the next 10 years of history, but at the moment, there's hardly enough content to warrant an independent article for Romania after EU membership. matt91486 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree completely; sorry if I didn't make that clear in my reasoning . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2007 was one of the most important years for Romania. Since 2007, Romania is a full EU member. Since then the history is changed in better. EU means that Romania will loose an important part of its sovereignity: currency (EURO), borders (Schengen) and so on.Anton Tudor (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CRYSTAL. Dahn (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Rancid. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Reed[edit]

The notability of the subject has not been established, and the article lacks any reliable sources by which it can be verified. The current contents of the article appear to violate WP:BLP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note A previous AFD resulted in Redirect back in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This individual has been a part of a published group in one way or another for close to twenty years. I would strongly suggest, however, that more relevant information be added soon or otherwise face another discussion about deletion, at which point my vote would change to Delete.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Rancid. Unless there's more to say about him, the content here could be readily incorporated into the band article. If more material becomes available, this page can be re-created. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rancid. Could merge, but since the article is unreferenced, that would be unwise unless that is rectified. The article contains nothing that doesn't belong at Rancid and has hardly improved in the 20 months or so since the 2005 AFD. This strongly suggests that the subject has no encyclopedic notability apart from his former band. Quale (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable; then merge. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady J[edit]

Non-notable singer. The article is speedy-able, as it does not assert notability. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see someone who is working with an orchestra as a vocalist, but the article almost seems to be more about the performer's biography. Just seems a wee bit coatrackish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It seems like notability is the main issue, as there don't seem to be other problems with the article that would lead to deletion. There is some media coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (music) says "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."--Larrybob (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, what of the sources? I'm unclear on the case for WP:RS for the references as given in the current article --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I couldn't find any good sources in a quick google search. There is a little coverage of her show The Gospel of Dolly but it looks really marginal. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Red Meteor[edit]

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources provided in the article and none found in googling -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC's standard for inclusion. Also no reliable sources are provided. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defied[edit]

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources given in the article. The name of the band makes it a difficult search but a string with defied and band with various band member names tossed in for different searches turns up nothing resembling a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC Secret ^account 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Standard Deity[edit]

Contested PROD. In-universe fictional new religion from a novel of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google didn't turn up any sources indicating notability so it's unlikely sources exist to allow this to pass WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - where the merge target is, I'm not sure. Jasper Fforde's books seem to have rather more coverage on Wikipedia than the typical TV series would these days, and I can well envisage the entries for the individual books and characters (including this article) being combined into one single article in the near future. Probably The Eyre Affair is the best target for now. Tevildo (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Revelation 1[edit]

Also adding Dark Revelation 2, Dark Revelation 3 and Dark Revelation 4. Fails WP:N, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon for recent consensus on this issue, Delete All-- Secret ^account 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. JuJube (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. Textbook fancruft/gameguide/irrelevant list. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Wikipedia is NOT Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete BAAAAAD article. Not notable. Not Yu-Gi-Oh!Metal Head (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Once the list of cards is removed, it is not much of a stub. Pastordavid (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The merge's said "merge anything useful", and then demonstrated nothing was in-fact useful. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotourism in North-West of Hong Kong[edit]

We already have an ecotourism article. There doesn't seem to be a reason why we need a special article for Ecotourism in a particlar area of a particular province of a particular country. As usual, de-proded by author without explanation. eaolson (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to wikitravel. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Country parks and conservation in Hong Kong but agree is more wikitravel oriented. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seconding the above merge to county parks and conservation, however at least the first item mentioned isn't even ecotourism since it appears history based. It almost reads as an ad for the companies providing service to the region. Travellingcari (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR Yahel Guhan 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a travel guide to me. Pastordavid (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ball[edit]

A fifteen year old who is supposedly a grand master ninja. Of course, no sources for this incredible success story. I'm inclined to believe its a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing comes up on Google. I agree that this is a hoax. Bláthnaid 14:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A claim like that would have a least one source, but this doesn't. Agree this may be a hoax. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the creator, Lampostwalker is probably Matthew Ball himself. Delete. D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provably false. Ball claims to be enrolled at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth despite the program having been closed in August 2007. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Hoax... I can tell you it was. Although one thing is true and he is a Gifted and Talented person (according to Witchford Village College, anyway! Delete when ready! Fr⁴zer 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE Ths artikel is lyk well gd innit? if u rmove dis den u r 2 evil nd shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.188.139 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

— 78.145.188.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Another not particularly clever hoax. Wish this junk was eligable for Speedy. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, a not particularly inspired or well constructed hoax, especially since the photograph is very obviously Ms. Yeardley Smith (the voice of Bart Simpson). Accounting4Taste:talk 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You idiot! After it was nominated someelse has put that on. And Yeardley Smith is Lisa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr4zer (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. And Fr4zer, WP:CIVIL kthx JuJube (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermae 2'40"[edit]

Non-notable student film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nothing much else really to say. Lankiveil (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of or assertion of notability. Tevildo (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Bláthnaid 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sports team owners[edit]

This seems to be a load of things bundled into one list. I wouldn't mind seeing a list for each individual sport (e.g. List of Formula One team owners; List of soccer team owners), but having this seems a bit overkill. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the page itself, the list includes anyone who has ever owned a sports team. Given how many sports teams have gone through many owners in their life, and there are hundreds of thousands of professional sports teams around the world, this list could go on forever. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extrapolation to the limits of the absurd is almost never a very good argument in favor of deletion, save for those occasions like "List of White People". I do agree with DMN that this would be more useful if it were split up into individual articles (NFL owners, MLB owners, English league owners, etc.). It's not indiscriminate, since it matches the owners to what they owned. Since the identity of a franchise owner is just as relevant as the identity of the coach or manager, the topic itself is relevant. I'd suggest leaving this up long enough to merge the information into existing "owners of teams" articles, spinning off what's left, and then deleting. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic search indicates one article List of NFL franchise owners that is only about current ownership. I didn't find an equivalent for MLB, NBA or NHL. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize? The list seems to add no new information other than to organize it. It's also incomplete. I notice they only had recent owners of the Chicago Cubs, for example. If you replace the list with some appropriate category, and the "succession boxes", then you wouldn't need the list anymore. Any volunteers for that work? FYI, the list has been around since November 2006, when User:Tecmobowl created it. However, he has nothing new to say about it, as he's been banned from wikipedia since last summer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the question of team Presidents. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. During Bill Wrigley, Jr.'s ownership of the Cubs (which is not on Tecmo's list, as he only starts with the son, Phil) the President was Bill Veeck, Sr. But under Phil and his son Bill III, Phil and then Bill were the President. But once the Trib bought the team, they've had a succession of corporate-suit "Presidents". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gives more information than a category: sport, team, years. That's useful enough to have a list as well. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Granted, it needs much work. But it has some valid reference value and is similar in concept to other lists such as List of current Major League Baseball announcers, etc. JGHowes ^talk - 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter)

No evidence of notability or demonstration that Kelly passes WP:MUSIC - no discussion of signing to a label, hits, coverage in reliable sources, awards, theme songs or any of the other criteria. WLU (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please check the following, independent source for more information on the artist PAT KELLY: [7] 84.198.184.60 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This still does not help the page pass WP:MUSIC - it is a slightly more independent source for the info on the page, but there's still no evidence that he's notable. WLU (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly must the criteria be?. here is an independent singer/songwriter who ha a good career in the Benelux countries and Scandinavia. He has published 2 solo albums - sure, no big record deal but all tracks self written, recorded and published by the artist and GEMA (germany) and BUMA STEMRA (holland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.184.60 (talk • contribs)

WP:MUSIC is most relevant, though WP:N is also a concern. You're mistaking a 'good' musician, who writes and plays his own music, with a 'notable' one, who has received, large amounts of coverage in some sort of press venue. Touring and producing albums isn't notable, lots of people do so. There needs to be some evidence that he's received attention beyond the crowds he's played for. WLU (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note: Please refrain from editing out comments in an AfD. Even tangential comments deserve to be heard in the discussion -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Seems to pass WP:MUSIC per the 4 full-length albums on the Aquarius Records label, a seemingly rather important indie label. Mango juice^talk 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I looked for him on Aquarius and I couldn't find him in the Store or the links pages. Am I looking on the wrong website, or the wrong section? Kelly states that all of them are published by Aquarius Music, which does not seem to have a wikipedia page. If I'm reading his page for the albums correctly [8] [9] [10] [11], Aquarius music has produced four CDs - his (admittedly speculation). This looks like self-publication to me, not attention and publication from a label. His CDs appear to be on sale through CDbaby, which doesn't seem to be a label, it's an on-line store. WLU (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to delete. Yup, that seems to check out. Mango juice^talk 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC. The albums don't appear to be on the notable Aquarius label, but rather on a different unrelated label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors[edit]

I originally was the creator of this page, and in the first nomination for the deletion was the main proponent of keeping it. I have since changed my mind and determined that the deletion of this page would be best for wikipedia. It does not demonstrate a notability to stay, per WP:LC and others. I think it should now be deleted. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are List_of_BloggingHeads.tv_contributors, and the first AfD debate Gwernol 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nomination. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Hu12 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Point Elementary School[edit]

Elementary schools are not normally seen as notable. There's no evidence for the notability of this particular school. andy (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Loretto Elementary School (created by the same editor) for the same reason. andy (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance/importance of these schools. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. (Agree to any other schools created by this editor today, as well.) Suggest revisting the essay stating that all high schools are notable, as violations of common sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Jonathan 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Non-notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as Arthur Rubin. Soxred93 | talk count bot 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No claims of notability and no references - it's a shame that school articles can't be speedy deleted. I agree that the current WP:SCHOOL's proposal that all high schools be considered automatically notable is silly and many of the other proposals in the draft clearly violate WP:NOTE, WP:ORG and WP:V. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consensus has illustrated that sub-high schools do not have de facto notability per WP:OUTCOMES.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Kid[edit]

Neologism with no evidence of widespread use and no sources. I declined speedy-ing this, but didn't feel good about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the one who originally put the speedy tag on this. Sounds to me like a tag that some teenagers would give to their peers, and I felt it was just short of being an attack page. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not an attack page. Admits it's a neologism, aserts that it is becoming "more and more" popular with teenagers, and then explains the condition of being "cadbury". In effect, this is a slang term for "a bit tipsy", and really belongs on Urban Dictionary - not here on Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase this. I re-read it, and it basically says tht it takes less booze for somebody to get drunk. This, my friends, is what is known as a "lightweight". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and this is suspicious for something that claims to be so widespread. I suspect it's a local protologism that someone's attempting to foist on us. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article admits it is a neologism and nonsense. Its clearly unverifiable and is written in an extremely unencyclopedic tone, full of weasel words and obvious nonsense. The IP that created the article is also inserting links to it in other articles: appears to be an effort to introduce something made up in school. Gwernol 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen character[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Like stated in the previous afd, this article is basically an original research "magnet" and most of the article is still unsourced. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unreferenced and a candidate for cleanup certainly but it is a very important concept in the TV and theatre industries and I feel wikipedia benefits from having an article on it - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, this looks more like a list than an article, and should probably be split as such, with List of unseen characters showing notable examples of the archetype while this character should focus more on real-world notability via sourcing and... such. (My internal thesaurus is teh fail! ^_^) That'd make my vote a Keep, although if it turns out that way I will try to raise this issue on the talk page. JuJube (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be easy to source this, given that there have been several encyclopedias written about television programs, such as Tim Brooks and Earl Marsh's Encyclopedia of Prime Time programming (or maybe he wrote "Total Television", which also describes the shows in alphabetical order). This one could use some trimming since the last time I saw it ("Fred Sanford's deceased wife, Elizabeth", e.g.-- trying to get that picture out of my mind). But the unseen character is "seen" (in the viewer's imagination) less often than a regular, yet more often than a recurring character. I'm going to add some sources right now just to clear up the O.R. objections. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's now mostly just a list but the topic is notable. Needs significant editing. JJL (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has the potential to be a good article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. It's original research and a crufty list, not an encyclopedia article. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that an article attracts cruft/OR/whatever is not a delete reason. This term is a real literary element. The article's quality is something you fix, not delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean the article up a little and properly source it, and i think it would be a useful article. God knows there are worse articles on wikipedia Masterhatch (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage hijack[edit]

Duplicates information from several other places such as articles about internet safety, hacking and viruses. Redundant article reads as a how-to. Hardly seems to be about its own title. Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to be a good article needs a bit of clean up to make it more encyclopedia friendly but don't think it is gounds for deletion.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unreferenced. seem the sort of neoligism that isn't important enough to have an article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Browser hijacking or since that is a currently orphaned stub in and of itself, merge both into Malware -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 28th Chess Olympiad[edit]

It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD cited Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mayalld. Malinaccier (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld. SyG (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly encyclopaedic. The context is wholly clear from the article. No deletion grounds were specified (precedent is not a valid ground). TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 father. Secret ^account 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Robbie[edit]

Delete unsourced blp about son of a famous person - notability is not inherited. He was a co-owner of a defunct team, as many rich people owned defunct businesses of many sorts doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable as the owner. he might not be now but he was notable. 'Once notable always notable' they say.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short, unsourced, non-notable. --Arny (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splatterball[edit]

Non-notable AOL game. No outside sources. Lots of vanity, how-to, and blow-by-blow context. Extreme amount of original research into terms used, system performance, game opinions. MBisanz ^talk 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like it was just another online game that didn't go anywhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite sounding like there may be sources out there, I've failed to find any in at least three separate searches. Most of the time the name is brought up in a laundry list of the developer's titles, nothing more than the name is mentioned. Fails WP:N due to lack of reliable non-trivial sources. Someone another 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pretty sad you guys don't even know how to use Google. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]75.111.18.86 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; invalid nomination criteria. AFD does not consider simple page moves. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Access[edit]

Not notable as a proper noun. So it should be deleted in addition to moving the content to Accessibility. Zondor (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep it. Tabletop (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge As the person who put the merge tag on the article, I support this deletion and/or merging the content to Accessibility or somewhere. --Jason McHuff (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Accessibility. Wongm (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gauthier[edit]

~~Non-notable article subject, evidently not substantially covered in multiple reliable sources. Would seem very unlikely to ever become more of an article than at present.~~ Ødipus 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having found satisfying RS on the subject, I'd like to withdraw this nomination and apologize for wasting people's time. Ødipus 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to see if I can find out what the general consensus is on major sports officials, but he definitely had a long career. If some referees are considered to be notable, he certainly would be having officiated 6 Stanley Cup finals. matt91486 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I looked at the IceHockey WikiProject and they've been trying to determine this very consensus. They've been going along the lines of the baseball wikiproject's standard which is "Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games. Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement." If we translate this to hockey, Gauthier easily exceeds these requirements having done more than 2000 games (considering the hockey season is half of the baseball season, that's more than 20 seasons as an NHL ref) and the 6 Stanley Cup finals. matt91486 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Patken4 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 2,000 games worked during 32yrs? Certainly notable. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHS (high schools)[edit]

This is just one of many similar lists masquerading as dab pages created recently by the same editor. The matter was fully explored at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools but the editor pressed on regardless. It's a pointless list of schools that are linked only by their initials, which no-one would ever search for and probably never stumble across but which will appear in search engines and create confusion. One such page may be over-enthusiasm by the editor but creating so many after a full debate is verging on vandalism. andy (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following pages:

RHS (high schools)‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem. We have dab pages for mhs, whs etc and these would be clogged by the addition of a long list of high schools so it seems reasonable imho to hive them off to separate linked pages as has been done. As to whether readers would input the initials; why wouldn't they? if they had heard mention of (eg) rhs and wondered what it might mean, then surely we want them to type it into wp don't we? That's what wp is for. Abtract (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (do not merge into the TLA page.) Block user for disruption. Suggest removing high school redirects from the TLA page, as well, as, if all high schools are notable, then even those which don't presently have an article should be listed under Wikipedia guidelines, making these pages inherantly unworkable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Taking MHS as an example, all the high schools listed have wp articles and therefor must be presumed to be notable ... it is a pretty fair guess that these schools are often known as "MHS" ... what else are dab pages for? I have no axe to grind here but it seems to me that more is preferred to less. Abtract (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delay action until consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools. The assertion that User:RightGot acted after consensus had been reached is inaccurate, as there is no current consensus in that discussion; and a Block for disruption would therefore be without merit. Nominating these pages this early into a discussion borders on bad faith. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is escalating - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RightGot. But check out what a disambiguation page is actually supposed to be: Wikipedia:DAB#Set_index_articles. "A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts". That doesn't describe these silly pages. They're not lists of conceptually different articles that might be confused, nor on the other hand are they lists of related items. If these articles were called something like "List of schools with the initials GHS" it would be easy to see how ridiculous they are. We don't have "List of foods whose name begins with A", do we? Why not? andy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm keeping an eye on the WP:ANI situation too, it seems that everybody needs some Vitamin WP:CHILL.... I'm all for letting the ANI process unfold as far as RightGot's fate. It still seems to me though that there is still some considerable debate regarding how to handle the school acronym situation. I do not however think that AfD is the proper forum to handle this debate. Once a consensus is reached on how to handle school acronyms, then we can decide if these pages should stand. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This [17] is MHS before User:RightGot's edits. I think we can all agree that the current incarnation [18] is a better solutions. Simply dropping the TLA's for the schools is problematic because the schools is sometimes referred to by their initials. Taemyr (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RoninBK, that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools has yet to reach any consensus one way or the other, and the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RightGot smacks a bit of forum shopping to me. If it is inevitable that high schools will be listed on these dab pages (and I do think it is inevitable, regardless of warnings or patrolling), then I do like the current MHS. This is similar to name dab pages with "nested" Name (surname) and Name (given name) pages (like Shepard, to pull one out of the blue that I was on just today). I would encourage everybody to tone down the conflict and try to develop a solid consensus. This seems like an important thing to get right - and forum shopping and AfDs (and the inevitable deletion reviews that will follow) don't seem like the best way to figure out a long term solution. I would say that this is a Keep, but I'm not emotionally invested in it. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended as forum shopping, but as an honest question of whether this (clearly disruptive) editor has surfaced before and was blocked before. I had no intent of linking the sets of ~~vandalism~~ edits incompatible with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but treating each set as a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Debate policies, not personalities. Regardless of the editor's motives, the question at issue is whether or not these acronyms should be spun out to separate dab pages. Leave the rest to the ANI discussion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, so why not have AAA (high schools), AAB (high schools), AAC (high schools)... all 17,576 possible commbinations? And then there there's the four letter acronyms. Because this isn't a legitimate disambiguation - there's no underlying ambiguity. No-one is going to confuse Muscatine High School, Iowa with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia, and no-one is going to thank WP if they google MHS and end up on a page full of school names. andy (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Two responses. First, we are only going to have this problem with TCAs ending with HS (maybe one or two other combinations but certainly not them all). Second, the point of dab pages is for readers who are not quite sure what article they want ... of course no-one would confuse Muscatine High School, Iowa with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia ... but no more would they confuse Message Handling System with Michigan Humane Society ... but they may have the initials MHS in their mind and have a vague idea that it is in Michigan, or Muscatine, or Malaysia etc. That is why we have dab pages for TCA's and I see no reason why schools should be excluded. And if the school bit get big enough then spring it off onto a separate page. Abtract (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it makes sense to have one of these for many of the 3-letter acronyms ending in HS for high schools.--Appraiser (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have lists of TLAs for all sorts of other entities, and high schools are a common use of such TLAs separate and apart from other such acronyms. Alansohn (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no evidence that any of these schools are actually known by these particular TLAs. They've been chosen simply because they might be. Take the time to look at some of the articles before voting. Malacca High School is actually known as TMK. Mainland High School might be known to a few people as MHS but it's far more likely to be called ASI, ACMT, ADMT, SSA or SRA. Manalapan High School in New Jersey seems to refer to itself as MNHS according to the school website. And so on. These lists aren't just pointless, they're misleading. andy (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note actually if you look at Malacca High School it uses TMK and MHS in the article. Abtract (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a dab page for TMK high schools as well - the only TMK entry in WP is for the Soviet space programme, completely missing the Malacca school and also Turk Maarif Koleji in Cyprus. Why stop at TLAs ending in HS - there are only 26 of them after all? andy (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? If you think a dab page for TMK is needed, then go ahead. We all know wp has a long way to go before it even approaches completeness but that is not reason to remove perfectly good dab material. As I said above, a better question than "should we disambiguate high schools?" is "should we separate out very large sections into separate dab pages or leave them with the main page?". Personally I think common sense says we should separate when it improves navigation. Abtract (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, Abtract makes a good point for removing the links to high school acronyms until verified. That would solve the page size problem, as these pages would not be as grossly populated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what the problem is. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If they help someone find a page then they serve their purpose. In any case they do no harm. TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty level[edit]

Your first reaction to this AFD may be "Hey! Difficulty level, that's a notable term; it should be kept." But I'd like to ask yourself to slow down and actually have a look at the article. Now, think about it: exactly how informative could this article possibly be?

Let's break it down.

First, we have the lead. Which gives us an obvious description to an obvious term. "In general usage, difficulty level refers to the relative difficulty of completing a task or objective." Duh. Does anyone really need to have that spelt out for them to understand?

The rest of the article crumbles into a slew of examples about how "such-and-such games has such-and-such difficulty options", "playing on this difficulty in this game changes this aspect" and so forth. Try this experiment: read the article while ignoring every example. Not much real content is there? What the article boils down to is this: glorified cruft. No matter how many examples get added, there will always be more to thrown in, since every game handles difficulty differently. Wikipedia is not a game guide, we shouldn't be spelling out every way difficulty can be changed in a game.

I rest my case. SeizureDog (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, what you said is somewhat true but I suppose people who don't play computer games might not know this stuff. If the history section was made the focal point of the article rather then a tiny little section it could be quite alright.--Him and a dog 12:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Josquius. The article as is needs serious help, and although the encyclopedic version might turn out to be not much more than a stub, I think it's important to have. JuJube (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is much wider than computer gaming and the article currently says nothing about the way it works in piano teaching, skiing, climbing, puzzles, etc. Since there is much scope for improvement, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding it to include other concepts would just make the article that much more rediculous. It would be tantamount to a Difficulty article that just listed how things are made more difficult.--SeizureDog (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's potential for a useful article on the _quantification_ of "difficulty" - as well as video games, mountaineering and diving come immediately to mind, and I'm sure there are other examples. Tevildo (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Colonel Warden. As a minimum, some reference to "degree of difficulty" (as in diving) seems appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would consider taking it the other way, renaming to something like Difficulty level (computer game), and focusing on the level design aspect of it -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion reason is given. Rray (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Graty[edit]

This character only appeared in one episode (and that was on a TV screen), and was heard on the phone in two more. Clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough notability here, given that there are very few sources and not much apparent in-universe notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of politicians on The West Wing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Brewcrewer. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Delete Per above. Earth bending master 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Programming Language[edit]

Seemingly dead project (last news update was five years ago, forum on site is broken) with no established notability (no programs written in it deployed, < 500 ghits). Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability in article itself nor evidenced by homepage. Google search finds a couple of dozen mentions, but mostly just pages linking to or reiterating what is said at homepage. HPL itself is/was apparently really little more than a project to translate PHP by replacing its tokens with some derived from Hebrew. —SlamDiego_←T 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn project; could be notable when completed but no evidence of WP:N now. JJL (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't mind either way. I added it because I knew of it and wanted to add it to the non-English programming languages category. But if it doesn't amount to anything, it can be removed. Shlomif (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Chetblong^Talk_Sign 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne Salon[edit]

Speedy-delete-tagged 09:14, 19 January 2008 by User:Dethme0w as advertisement. User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back asked me for undelete and told me that he intends to rewrite it and de-spam it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, naturally.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Sting au Buzz Me... 12:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a completely different article from the one I tagged as spam. If one were to remove all the promotion from its previous state, we would be left with a blanked page. Dethme0w (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This isn't spam, and apparently this company has been critically acclaimed. --Kannie | talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable wine brand and Fat Man has done a great job in removing the advert tone to where even the original tagging editor is satisfied. I'd like to work on getting this up to DYK and hope that AfD could be speedy closed soon. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, second to speedy, no question of notability or RS potential. Current article state far from initial weaselPOVvy form. MURGH ^disc. 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing comment. We suspect the original author of this article was literally the sales director for this label's European distributor. See talk page; he copied language directly from his company's website. But if he hadn't done so, there wouldn't be an article about this notable label, so it turned out okay in the end..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. It is a notable wine product, regardless of all the previous problems with the article. Plus in any event, this kind of ridiculously exclusive and expensive product hardly needs Wikipedia to promote it in the eyes of anyone who can actually afford it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, quite notable in the high-cost champagne category. I tried to de-advertise it a bit more. Tomas e (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Salim[edit]

Delete. Notability not established. WWGB (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS coverage. NN local Chicago businessman. He and Peter Psihos, also up for deletion, made a small spash in the local media over a smoking ban. Salim and Psihos operate adjoining shops.[19] • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines, entirely localized celebrity, no reliable sources, no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too local Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Psihos[edit]

Delete. Notability not established. Generally a vanity page. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small-time business operator with no genuine notability, page is being used as a platform to present his opinions on several different topics, with multiple attempts to suppress the AfD. Pairadox (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and lack of WP:RS coverage. Local shop owner fights smoking ban and gets a mention in the local press.[20]. That's it. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not convincing. A CV/vanity page, hopefully done by a mate. Victuallers (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn fast Fourier transform[edit]

This topic is mentioned in exactly one book, and makes no sense. There is insufficient context or explanation, but I've decoded it and can state that it is clearly not a "fast" was to compute a FT or DFT; it is an incremental DFT, giving the DFT on an sliding window, which is very different from what it claims to be, which is some guy's idiosyncratic idea. Let's get rid of it, since it's not notable (that is, it does not have multiple independent reliable sources). Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google search on "damn fast fourier transform" -Wikipedia gets 6 hits. Not a significant algorithm; probably a scientific WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may even be a advertisement for the method. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search on google scholar and found another 2 articles on the subject. I also noticed that it have computer science stub on it but the subject would appeal more to a electric engineer than a computer scientist. I suggest that we add a tech stub to the page and give it another chance. Equanimous2 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wait – those are both ARRL publications by Doug Smith, KF6DX, the guy who made it up. There are no independent uses of this concept or name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are written by one person, so it's not notable, and I trust Dick on this topic. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, editors may merge as they see fit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fnu Lnu[edit]

Totally unsourced; not really notable or interesting. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I mentioned after QYV contested the PROD:
- "Uninteresting" is subjective and not a criteria for deletion
- "Unsourced" is a cause for cleanup, and not a reason for deletion if the content is verifiable, which this is
- "Notable" is debatable, but if the content is verifiable through a reliable source, it should at least be merged into another pseudonym article.
This is a verifiable pseudonym in widespread usage and is notable both for its prevalence in law enforcement and the complications it causes when applied to Indonesian names. If you feel it needs sourcing or cleanup, deletion is not the answer. If you feel it needs merging, suggest an appropriate target. —dgies^t_c 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some more information with sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable to John Doe. (And totally unsourced would suggest a lack of notability, but the present article seems to have a source for its use and interest.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Placeholder name or John Doe. --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nlu. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn. Kurykh 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness[edit]

Demo cassette tape, limited to 500 copies. Prod tag removed, no sources for notability provided. Aipzith (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge of Paroxysmal Holocaust, Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness, and Time Shall Tell into List of Therion demo albums. While notable as early releases of the band's work, they don't work well as stand-alone articles. Failing that, they should be somehow worked into Therion discography.--SeizureDog (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to fail WP:MUSIC—Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable, although these demos belongs to the band which is one of the most influential music group of its genre. The article is expandable and can provide informations about roots of the band. It is also production of notable musicians. Visor (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you say "Ќeep" but then say it fails WP:Music... Aipzith (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said "it seems to fail", not "it fails". WP:MUSIC states that Demos etc. are _in general_ not notable but I've provided some proofs of notability. Visor (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you talking about the MusicBrainz link? Because all it does is list the three songs. Currently the article has a couple of links that prove that the demo exists, and that the information is factually accurate, but I see nothing to indicate notability. This article consists of the barest of information. If it is expandable, please do add something. Aipzith (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have expanded article as far as I could. However, it still can be expanded from further references, such as Celebrators of Becoming documentary, interviews, etc. No, I'm not talking about MusicBrainz link. By notability, I meant that is a production of notable musicians, one of the most influential music group of its genre and such album is a great illustration of the band's roots, no matter it was released in 500 copies and head of the band says this album sucks ;) Visor (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my nomination of this article from consideration for deletion, since it is much improved by Visor from the state in which I found it. If sombody feels like merging this somewhere, that's up to them. Aipzith (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson W760[edit]

Newly announced phone with no established notability. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikpiedia is not a cell phone guide. Too few substantial third-party references are available to create an article that itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Mikeblas is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide, I would argue that keeping users informed about new consumer technology is a reasonable application of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the article is not biased, and is a simple presentation of facts. If someone would care to substantiate what a "reliable third-party source" is, I will find and post some.TMSTKSBK (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to come around to Mikeblas's point of view, but I would like to request that this be frozen until the discussion concerning cellphone notability at the Village Pump is resolved. TMSTKSBK (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling (searching using the Google search engine) for "W760 review" or "W760" brings up significant numbers of results for this phone. Some sites include MobileBurn, Engadget Mobile, Cellphonedigest, Gizmodo, Mobile-Review, Esato, CNet, and PhoneArena. CNet, Engadget, Esato and MobileBurn are all pretty well-known consumer electronics websites. Would you consider any of these to be adequate as a 3rd-party source? If not, what would you like for me to provide? TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N for information on "substantial", and WP:V and WP:RS for information on "reliable". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read those. Now please tell me your thoughts on the matter and let's discuss. TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us anything notable about it? It seems to be a phone with things that all phones usually have. Does it have anything new or different about it? Is it the first phone to have something interesting? Or is it known for being the least innovative phone of 2008? Seriously though, I'm sure there's got to be something going for it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable: Google News Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. The refs are: 2 copies of the manufacturer's press release, and proforma reviews from two websites which routinely provide such reviews of every new cell phone model. Thus the reviews merely substantiate that it IS a new cell phone (verifiability) but do not show it is more notable that the other 7 gazillion cell phone models which they provide such reviews of. Edison (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn phone, agree with Edison, the sources show it doesn't meet WP:N Secret ^account 02:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estée Lauder pleasures[edit]

Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Also goes against WP:NOT#ADVERTISING Russavia (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News Archieves has over 300 sources listed for this line so it is both verifiable and notable. [21]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having looked thru Google News (before putting this up for Afd), I noticed that many of the results are press releases, so they can't be used as a basis for WP:N. Many other sources don't write extensively on the product in an encyclopaedic fashion, and many others mention Pleasures but in the context of the overall Estee Lauder product line/profits/etc. And then there are some which are about Pleasures, but other products such as Pleasures Delight, Pleasures Exotic, etc. And then some are about Gwyneth Paltrow being the face of the product; this may be suitable for a mention in her article but as notability isn't inherited, it can't be used to give this product notability. --Russavia (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It won the 1995 FIFI awards! Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware it won the 1995 FIFI, however, this alone can not be used as a determination as to whether an article is suitable for inclusion, yay or nay? My opin is nay, unfortunately.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:RS are abundant, nominator is being querulous. Rebecca (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio/Comment I have removed from this article copyvio which has been lifted off another website. Pricing information removed due to WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. The 'reference' does not exist and is a commercial website so have removed that as a potential spam link under WP:EL. Having a celebrity endorsement is not reason enough for an encyclopaedia entry. --Russavia (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood cricket club[edit]

Prod was contested about 5 weeks ago. Concerns over notability: I find a few (34) ghits, but only in personal webpages, sports listings and community guides for Perth, and so on, and nothing in Google News. The city of Wanneroo (in which league they play) has a population of 110,000, and the town of Joondalup, Western Australia (in which they are based) has a population of 7000, so not making this a major sports association. No major sporting awards or other stories to establish significance. — BillC ^talk 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An amateur club in an amater competition. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a local amateur sporting team without wider notability. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, non-notable amateur club. By all the nicknames, looks like it was created more for fun than anything encyclopaedic! •Florrie•leave a note• 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. No decent secondary sources. —Moondyne 07:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see any reason why the club could be notable. JH (talk page) 09:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously not notable - I live a couple of suburbs away and I think even my suburb has one. (For the record Wanneroo-Joondalup is a fairly big area with about 300,000, but it's not even close to highest grade of the sport, so that much is irrelevant). Orderinchaos 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as CSD A7 by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Panek[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. No references supporting notability given or found. CSD and prod deleted by anon IP. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page under construction, notable person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.200.200 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Abbinanti[edit]

insufficient/hopelessly unclear notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is still in its infancy and not great but the justifcation presented here for deletion is specifically notability. The number of relevant hits that you get from google (using search strings "Robert Abbinanti" "boxer") suggests he is notable. Ros0709 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Top links are obscure in notability at best. MY name appears alot if you search right, and I'm not notable at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://www.ipsn.org/damico.html: brief mention as local mob member and former amateur boxer. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=List_of_male_boxers: seems to be a mirror of List_of_male_boxers. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://pipl.com/directory/people/Robert/Abbinanti: only links to other obscure listings. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment on comment. Name/Occupation is hardly gaming Google. I'm all for deleting bios of people no-one's ever heard of and particularly those which are vanity pages but it looks like this name is all over the internet. And indeed, the lack of information at those links that you highlight means people are more likely to come to WP to slate their curiosity - let's give them the information. Ros0709 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: And yet, there seems to be little to NO information on his notability... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his career as an amateur boxer does not appear to have attracted sufficient notice to generate any coverage. His other activities are hinted at, but there is no coverage actually about him. Possibly a minor mob figure. But essentially, there are no reliable sources upon which to build an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article professes to be about an amateur boxer, thus failing WP:BIO on inherent notability, and presents no reliable sources for his notability, thus failing the primary notability criterion. He's got a page on the boxing wiki, edit that one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That the article might still be in its infancy is one thing, but I'm curious as to how all the time in the world will conflate a local amateur boxer into some measure of notability. Beyond that, the paragraph on the subject's alleged mob ties is vaguely written and almost entirely unconnected with him, and WP:BLP demands a great deal more than a single link mentioning the subject's name in a twelve-year old appeals decision (concerning someone else, as to that) before declaring him a Mafioso. What elements of WP:BIO do any proponents of the article claim this fellow meets? RGTraynor 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: The content of Jill King (singer) was moved to Jill King after the deletion was made. I ask that the page on the singer not be deleted as a G4. I had this happen before with Shane Minor, and I don't want it to happen again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jill King[edit]

This article a couple of claims to notability, but I don't think that it's quite enough. Claims that her art is in the Brookfield Zoo and Encyclopedia Britannica are unsourced and appear unverifiable. Only reference is to a redlink and appears primary. A search for reliable sources turned up none.

(Note: This AfD is not biased in any way by the fact that I have just created Jill King (singer), a page on an unrelated country music artist. However, should this page be deleted, I would appreciate if the content from Jill King (singer) were moved here, to conform with naming conventions.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Even if the unsupported claims do turn out to be true, still seems to be on the wrong side of the bar of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, all the reviews listed here check out. Artemis-Arethusa, who created the article, has a good understanding of the Chicago art scene, but unfortunately xe hasn't edited since October, so I'm not sure if xe'll see this discussion. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do to clean up the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, never mind. I'm not sure how much I can do with this article. The reviews generally don't give me much to work with, and it seems her best-known work is just a mural in a suburban theater. Zagalejo^^^ 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if refs can be found. Both the artist and the singer of the same name seem to have borderline notability. The artist seems to have had several exhibits. A few decent references should be enough here. The details of exhibitions, etc. listed on her website appear to be true.--Michig (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zagalejo already tried to expand the article and admitted that the refs found weren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic example of WP:LOCAL. Obviously an accomplished artist with some Chicago-area recognition, but accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Vibe[edit]

Non-notable remix musician. Corvus cornix_talk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read this carefully and it seems that the only notability is from remixing a piece of music which has some small notability for having been used in a video game -- the piece of music, but NOT the remixes. Anyway, no reliable sources for the assertions. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability claimed. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Ugly[edit]

Non-notable rapper, has yet to releae an album. Corvus cornix_talk 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has appeared on Grand Theft Auto, has done work with many notable rappers, including Hi-Tek, 50 cent, DJ Whoo Kid, Royce Da 5'9", etc, releasing album sometime in 2008. (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Are you going to argue your point at all? (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Unless you decide to argue your point I'm gonig to take away the delete thing, because the page reaches notability guidelines. (Joelasaurus (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The AfD thing has to stay until resolved here, usually for 5 days. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't get me wrong, it's a good start to establishing notability, but you're gonna need more sources for the article to stand. The one source that's not self-published is good, but a reading of that article suggests that given the troubles he's had with the law and his record labels, the statement that he is going to be dropping an album this year might be WP:CRYSTAL. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much textbook example of an artist that doesn't meet WP:BAND. No released albums, no secondary sources. eaolson (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, one secondary source, [22] -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not even looking for a deal, I'm waiting for them to come to me In other words, unsigned. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see roninbk's point, and i am planning on getting in touch with p.u on the matter, i am currently seeking information and references, sources, interviews, and anything else i can find about p.u. www.gamecrib.com wouldve been helpful, if the site hadnt of have been deleted, but i am finding small articles and things. Also, see my point above, collaborating with well-known artists should garner notability. (Joelasaurus (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Joelasaurus, I seriously doubt you'll find the articles by the time this AfD closes. It's nothing against Pretty Ugly, it might just be that it's not his time to have a Wikipedia article. You might want to copy the page to your User space so you can keep working on it, and once you have some serious publicity coverage for him you are certainly welcome to recreate the page. You might also check out Wikipedia:Alternative outlets in the meantime. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Satellite TV[edit]

Article is WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Request for non-primary sources are removed by anon editors Diff there does not appear to be any attempt to meet Wikipedia expectations. Jeepday (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable spammy article.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 Lake City Timberwolves Basketball[edit]

High schools, in general, barely squeak by on the notability list. Their basketball teams do not. A year by year discussion of the basketball team's matchups is not notable by any criterion. There was a prod added, but the article creator removed it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn highschool basketball team. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: per nom. I can think of no case where even the most nationally renowned high school sports teams get articles - heck, there aren't separate articles for the Permian High School football team or the Christ The King basketball team, overwhelming candidates if ever there were any. Individual seasons for one, complete with game summaries, absolutely do not fit the WP:NN bill. Much better suited for the school's website. Ravenswing 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE CAN WE LET IT STAY?! IT TOOK ME A LOT OF TIME AND HARD WORK TO CREATE ALL THIS, AND IF I KNEW IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE DELETED, I WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED IT..SO CAN WE *PLEASE* LET IT STAY, I'M DOING IT FOR FUN, AND SO THE KIDS AT LAKE CITY HIGH SCHOOL KNOW WHAT TIME THE GAMES ARE, AND WHERE, AND ALL THAT. I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK INTO YOUR HEART, AND PLEASE LET THIS ARTICLE STAY. THANKS. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does look like it took you a lot of work! I'm really very sorry, but Wikipedia is simply not the place for this, unfortunately. Maybe you could think of another way to get the word out about games, perhaps flyers or a noticeboard at school? I do feel guilty about voting delete for something that obviously took a lot of time and effort to create. You could save the source text for the article in your computer to preserve it for posterity, and maybe the essential bits can be merged into your school's main article. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: In particular, Lake City High School has a dedicated athletics website. [23] Ravenswing 15:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man...but i've seen worse things on wikipedia dang. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Look, I understand the creator put alot of hard work into this site, but that's not a good enough reason to keep it. Do you have a school newspaper? or post it on your school's school sports website? or announcements over a PA? or even one of those MySpace thingys that are hip with the kids nowadays? There's other places you can put this aside from Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not your - or your employer's - personal webspace Doc Strange (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Re-keep; non-admin closure per WP:SNOW; three more straight keep votes. Also, the person who pressured User:SeanMD80 to relist it had questionable reasoning. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montenotte, Ireland[edit]

Unsourced, no indication of importance/significance, prod reverted. According to Talk:Montenotte, Ireland it's a large neighborhood but that's not sourced, google show hotels, houses for sale, nursing home but no notability, books.google show it listed as an address several times. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:04z

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES see "places". This article only created yesterday. Give it time to develop. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources indicating that it's a "Larger neighborhood", in fact there are no sources at all. wp:v requires sources, and the burden of proof is on people adding info. Wikipedia is trying to build an encyclopedia, with articles about topics that are notable enough for an encyclopedia; not a messageboard, another usenet, or an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:59z
Keep Towns/Villages/Cities/etc are considered automatically notable. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a "suburb" according to the article, tho there are no sources for even that. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:59z
Keep - WP:OUTCOMES. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that OUTCOME is an unsourced essay, and thus has no actual say over whether an article is kept or deleted. Please cite actual guidelines and policies (which DO have say) when commenting. TJ Spyke 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to point out that WP:OUTCOMES is as valid as any other argument. AFD is about WP:CONSENSUS. If it were just about rules we wouldn't need a discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES is still just an opinion piece. That means actual guidelines and policies always over ride OUTCOMES (this mainly applies to school related AFDs, where some people think they should be kept even if they fail WP:V and WP:N). TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places have time and time again been shown to be notable after consensus. I'm not sure tagging the outcomes essay with an unreferenced tag was appropriate either, being that it's not an encyclopedic article and therefore doesn't really require citations. matt91486 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to verify the place exists, so it fails WP:V (which is a POLICY, not an essay like "WP:OUTCOMES"). TJ Spyke 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's an address it's a postcode thus notable. There are scattered references to the district dating back to the 19th century and it seems right now to be one of the nicer parts of Cork. This is certainly verifiable in any meaningful sense of the word, no matter what our article contains at the present moment. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are no postcodes in Ireland outside of Dublin the the occupied six counties.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's this "occupied six counties" you talk of?? :p (BTW, check out UK postcodes#Northern Ireland - Alison ^❤ 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this local chap can tell you all about it!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does it have its own gov't or is it under the jurisdiction of the city's public officials? If no then Delete Parts of towns are not notable by themselves and should at least be mentioned on that town's article per WP:LOCAL. If yes then Weak Keep until sources are presented that verifies that information.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunatly Towns/Villages/Cities/etc are considered automatically notable and need to be proven Not Notable or Non-Existant to be deleted. Take a browse through all the non-notable Hungarian towns WP has listed if you dont believe me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to even pretend that this counts as a valid source, but GoogleMaps seemed to know where it was, so it's a real place. Sources exist somewhere for the article, it's just a matter of having the tenacity to track them down. Not all sources are available online, remember. matt91486 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real place, with real references (now). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Cite and ref issues aside, is automatically notable as per other suburbs/towns/etc. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the more notable Cork suburbs in itself. Notable anyway per Guliolopez - Alison ^❤ 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old? [24] is vague but seem to call it a suburb. No referenced reliable third party sources about Montenotte indicate that it's notable. WP:OUTCOMES#Places says "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)". No sources are listed showing it has its own government. The number of residents is tiny, so it's not a large neighborhood which is also mentioned in OUTCOMES. What am I missing here? I can see how it's a fine topic for a messageboard, but how is this a notable and encyclopedic topic? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-22t21:57z

I must remind you as the one who closed this AfD early (?) that if AfDs were just substitutes for applying "policy" then we would have no reason for them. AfDs are about determining which action the community feels is right and appropriate. If the consensus is to ignore "policy," then it can do that. Policies on Wikipedia are not laws, but reflections of the community's previous general consensus. Policies change when consensus changes. Wikipedia is governed by the people that participate in it, not by the people that read it, and has no formal responsibility to those people as such. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guliolopez (and others) although moving to Montenotte, Cork would probably be more in keeping with naming conventions. Montenotte is well-known in it's own right; the article needs references and expansion but it's more a case of finding and adding the print references. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Matthews (head of school)[edit]

There are two links to New York Times articles, but this school rector simply still feel sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO: "trivial coverage". -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:09z

Keep The heads of the major US and UK preparatory schools are notable. There are probably more sources to be found. DGG (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have support for the assertion that the heads of major preparatory schools are notable? And what is a "major" preparatory school, anyway? (The high school I went to had more than 2000 students, and is a public school; what makes it less or more "major" than this school?) --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wondering which of the schools in Concord, New Hampshire would be regarded as major? Are we going public or private here? Concord, New Hampshire#Education. I checked a couple Concord High School (New Hampshire)#Notable alumni and faculty and St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire)#Notable faculty. I'm leaning towards delete as the first ref only an incidental mention. Second ref doesn't mention the subject and third ref is a school website. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability beyond his post, which fails to meet WP:BIO. — BillC ^talk 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn head of a school. That's his job. Whats he notable for? Fails WP:BLP at present but I'm now waiting for an avalanche of WP:RS. Is that rumbling I hear? Sting au Buzz Me... 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, as the creator of the article, the reasoning was that because he's the head of an important school (yes, it doesn't have as many students as Concord High, but it was the first place that squash and hockey were played in America, and the school has many famous alums including William Randolph Hearst and John Kerry. I'll gladly stand down if you guys agree it's not relevant (am I allowed to vote?) but it seems to me that, like the CEOs of large companies, the heads of notable schools are per se notable. Mjl0509 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the article you are certainly allowed to vote here. However AfD is not actually a vote as such. We are after consensus. So please add your opinion (and reasons) to keep here in this discussion. Having squash and hockey first played there makes the school notable. Not this articles subject. Likewise Hearst and Kerry give notability to the school but it could be argued that their notability had nothing to do with the school (or the current head). Sting au Buzz Me... 10:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteThe article is about a person who runs a major prep school but it fails to meet the standards of notability described in WP:BIO Rgoodermote 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that nobody has argued for deletion here. With respect to the target, I'll rather cleanup the redirects / dab pages related to Lar/LAR, though. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las[edit]

Mistagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio. Procedural nom. Keilana^talk 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a carbon of the last paragraph of Patroclus#Life before the Trojan War. Wikipedian 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is the 3rd nomination, why am I not seeing the first two? Hobit (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, as I'm guessing that the "third nomination" was a bug/mistake. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patroclus; nothing in here to justify it's own article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notable, but the references need cleanup. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxide radio[edit]

Unreferenced, WP:COI issues, and while Oxford University is notable, this particular online radio doesn't seem to be. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the page since other online radio stations (LSRFM (Leeds), Surge (Southampton)) have active pages. I am working with the station manager regarding history and other details, and will put a stub on the page. Oxide is a popular station around Oxford and I believe is noteable, especially if other university radio stations can have pages. Oxideradio (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Vivio. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:40z
Keep, appears to be in the early stages of editing. Let's at least give them a chance to find some references rather than jumping over them as soon as the article is started. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I decided to be charitable and help them out. The article is now referenced (I apologise for not knowing the style, I always have problems figuring that out - I've just left them as external links for now), so I think we've established notability. There are still COI issues, but that isn't enough to warrant deletion. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - RefMaker Cheat Tool - at this location. Hope this helps. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, station has won at least three Student Radio Awards, but otherwise not much notability is established. Jeodesic (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Though I did find a source on NME, it was a blog. The other 10 pages of Google proved fruitless. I'm sure this is notable on the campus, but off-campus it doesn't seem to be so. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - added bbc source Oxide student radio goes onto FM, BBC Nov 2 2005 // i'm sure there are more. ∴ here…♠ 06:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources appear to be added to the article showing the subject is notable. D.M.N. (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After digging I found our article on Intermediate Units, but there's nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this particular one. KrakatoaKatie 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Intermediate Unit[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of context, however, a Google search turns up some references. Procedural nom. Keilana^talk 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly some local notability, but not right for general encyclopedic article.--Thör (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after reading about 5 pages of google hits I think I have finally figured this a school, but I'm still not even sure. Ridernyc (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thör. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t04:47z
Delete since no one has come here to explain what this is or improve the article, I seriously still can not figure out what it is. There for I think my original Speedy for lack of context was a good call. Ridernyc (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate trends[edit]

The content is partly speculative; the topic seems to be more appropriate to a trade publication than an encyclopedia. Beland (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notable topic, but poorly written and sourced as it stands now. I think it can be rescued. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we can save this one, but it needs more sources and more writing if we do. It does meet notability requirements. ― LADY GALAXY 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changes in the real estate industry and the regulation of mortgages are especially notable at this time. Mandsford (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs some more work, but is notable, and has some long term potential.--Thör (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current version seems reasonable referenced and objective. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Tha Ripper[edit]

The page doesn't show enough notability; external links are mostly of self-made pages; only one interview mentioned; discography shows mixtapes but no studio albums. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a tricky one, but he's not that well known so it currently doesn't meet notability standards. ― LADY GALAXY 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Seems popular in the Cleveland area, but virtually no coverage outside the city. Hopefully in a year’s time he will have more references than we could list. Shoessss | Chat 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Records[edit]

Probably not notable per WP:MUSIC. There are no third-party sources. The external links include Myspace. I suspect COI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Non notable business.TheRingess (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Numerous notable appearances in reputable programs. WP:MUSIC does not mention labels, but primarily performers. Suspecting COI is not a reason for deletion (actual COI is another thing altogether). Article should be tagged for WP:NPOV,WP:V, & cleanup. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Record label with a long history and sufficient coverage out there. The article needs a lot of improvement, but an article here is merited. They appear to have some notable artists, but in a genre that is poorly represented on Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - enough sources out there and history, including 1 cd on amazon [25] // needs reduction and rebuild with cred. print sources. ∴ here…♠ 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skilf[edit]

Prod removed by WP:SPA. Really thin on reliable sources, and no evidence of major radio, charts, awards, multiple albums, or anything else to establish notability. Shawis (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. References in the article are not reliable and a search reveals none either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC; has not been the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Cosoi[edit]

Article about a non-notable actress with no career to speak of. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She also appeared in a strictly come dancing romania but i didn't write it down, if she's been on playboy she's significant, plus she's breathtaking lol Gaogier (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ps: she was actually a playmate[reply]

keep: if she appeared in Playboy then I am sure there are people who are going to want to know something about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have appeared in Playboy over the years and there aren't verifiable or reliable sources on most of them. They would, therefore, fail WP:N. Playboy appearances themselves are not inherently notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, best claim to fame seems to be appearing in some episodes of a couple of Romanian sitcoms that don't look like they've been smash hits. I can't read Romanian, so willing to change my vote if someone presents Romanian-language evidence of notability. Lankiveil (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has significant regular roles in two national TV shows which is one of the criterion for actors per WP:BIO. There's no "must be smash hits" provision. --Oakshade (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Benson[edit]

YouTube comedian currently ranked 19th with 18,000 subscribers. Several weak claims to fifteen minutes of fame, I'm not sure that there's enough here to establish notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ahh we set-up a conflict here. On one hand we say that the shows Greg Benson , which also credits him for creating and producing, such as the Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show are notable enough for Wikipedia but he is not. Sorry to say, I do not think we can have it both ways.Shoessss | Chat 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article serves as a coatrack for content on the show, which already appears at Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show. Once this is removed, the article is unreferenced and the article therefore fails WP:N. Please note that the addition of more sources (and some more assertions of notability) to the sections not about the show would fix this problem. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the section about the show. Article now lacks sources, and thus fails WP:BLP as well. Please note that the addtions of references (in reliable sources) would fix this problem. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Just because there's not enough there doesn't mean it's useless, I only just made it. Sure maybe I should've researched more before making it in the first place but now it's there, IT's THERE! And I will add more to it, I've notified Greg and asked if he could supply details and I gave him the article URL. But for gods sakes, I can't know everything about him can I? I've given what I know and researched as much as I could, other users can add to it as well, and perhaps Greg Benson himself can contribute facts about himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy0002 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that there are strict limitations on people editing their own pages; in a nutshell, it doesn't count that he can supply info from his own memory, but rather, only if it comes from a verifiable and reliable source that other people could check for themselves. So for example, if he has a newspaper clipping that isn't available online or through electronic databases, that's an example of info that can be checked that the person himself can point us to.Lawikitejana (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, another wannabe celebrity youtuber. No third-party sources provided.--Seriousspender (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I've added some third-party sources, but the whole reason I haven't created the article previously was that I never really ran across articles about him or that quoted him (for example). IMDb lists commercials he's been in, as well as a starring role in the TV movie about Flight 93. I don't think there's any written mention of the shorts he made that starred Adam Arkin, Karri Turner, or Cree Summer, which would go to notability, but I could be wrong.Lawikitejana (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Update: See Keep argument, below.Lawikitejana (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. No real claim to notability. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spoken to Greg himself. He would prefer it if the article was deleted. And I respect his wishes so I no longer support this article. If anybody want proof of the message then feel free to message me. --Jammy (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's nice to know the subject's views on the matter, they're actually not relevant to the process of deciding whether he qualifies as notable, nor whether the article sufficiently demonstrates that point (though I appreciate your diligence and his flexibility). Lawikitejana (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. As regards to --Jammy (talk), sorry to say, once you are notable, you are notable. Shoessss | Chat 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Voted twice Secret ^account 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This process is not a vote! It is a consensus. We do not count up the Keeps and Deletes and the one with the most is declared a winner! Shoessss | Chat 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, you can't comment Keep twice in a AFD. Secret ^account 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not believe there is a limit on the number of times an editor is allowed to comment. Just consider my second Keep vote a stutter of the fingers :-) Shoessss | Chat 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much in sourcing, all of them are sources such as youtube, myspace, etc, which isn't reliable. Secret ^account 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Per above. Also, please note re: Secret's comment - not sure you have reviewed article since additional sources were added. There are now sources such as IMDb, which lists him in some 11 features, not counting his own short films, plus guest appearances in 10 television series. That still may not be sufficiently notable by some people's lights, but it's certainly more qualified as a reliable source by WP's standards. Incidentally, I've now removed the expansion tag, having added nationality, date and place of birth (sourced), education (sourced), and the marriages to Paige Davis and Kim Evey (also sourced).Lawikitejana (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various reliable sources are now cited, including a second honor for film work. Also, the Tribeca item (now properly sourced) represents being selected as a finalist in a prestigious competition involving weeks of being featured on Amazon.com's main page. I'd argue at this point that notability is made.Lawikitejana (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Database is a primary source and only the roles are, i still don't see the secruntary coverage needed for WP:N. Secret ^account 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the show might've been popular, notability isn't inherited; it doesn't go both ways. Due to the Google search for this person consisting solely of IMDB, youtube and Myspace, I don't think that notability is established. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Earth bending master 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Stone[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. I can't find any reference to this British actress with "literally hundreds of films" in IMDb, nor several random film credits I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. This is strange, because the author also created Marianne Stone, who is a legitimate actress. But none of "Rita Stone"'s films exist. JuJube (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax, there is no such TV programme as "More Tea, Vicar?". Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete - very clear consensus has formed to delete this, and as such, there's no need to extend this process longer. Also, this is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Vancouver Canucks season, and the reason for deletion here is is identical, that it utterly fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Maxim_(talk) 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The current season is not over yet. There really is nothing that can be written about any of these team's 2008-09 season until after this one is complete, as this empty template shows. Recreate after this year is done and activities related to the 2008-09 season begin. Pparazorback (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, we need to wait until this season is over at least. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing that can be written about the 2008-09 season yet as anything that would happen to affect that season would be happening now during the 2007-08 season and would thus belong on the 2007-08 season page. In general the hockey project considers the start of the next season to be the entry draft in June which is just after the Stanley Cup playoffs which mark the end of the previous season. Delete per WP:Crystal. -Djsasso (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you took the deletion rationale right out of my mouth! ;) Delete per nom. Far to early for articles on next season. Resolute 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could not have been explained any better :) -Pparazorback (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too early to begin discussing this season yet, as it's still some distance away. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Festival[edit]

Prodecural nom; seems to be a non-notable music festival. Keilana^talk 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party references. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, no third-party references. Gromlakh (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any festival from which MuchMusic has broadcast live remotes clearly has to be notable enough for us. Keep; I'll look after improving the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources as well—they now include the CBC, the Telegraph-Journal, and The Daily News. It now meets WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now easily meets the notability requirements for secondary sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources to verify the chart positions were provided after 15 days of discussion. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo Tantrum[edit]

Article fails to assert notability. No 3rd party independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. The article says their album charted on the German and Dutch national metal charts. If that can be verified, then they pass WP:BAND. Rigadoun (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless proof verifying the chart claims can be shown, it fails WP:MUSIC. Of the 9500 ghits, most are for a UK drum and bass label of the same name, still others are for software by Bitherdz and an EP by The A-Bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Having an album chart in two countries isn't the same as having a single chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, per Rigadoun above. Having an album chart is a more difficult and impressive feat than manipulating a single onto the pop charts. If sources can't be found in the next week or so to back up that claim, then delete it. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oz episodes. I'll do the redirects only though, since it is not clear to me how the target should look like. Including the mentioned references there, would be a good idea as well.Tikiwont (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Your Health[edit]

Also nominating the related articles: The Routine; ‎ Visits, Conjugal and Otherwise; ‎God's Chillin'; Capital P‎; Straight Life
‎ Delete all - all articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as being nothing but plot summaries of the episodes devoid of any real-world context or content. Attempt to redirect to List of Oz episodes was rejected by article's creator, who I assume would also object to a prod, so here they are. Otto4711 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any difference of those articles from an article about an Seifeld episode, for example. I think they should stay how they are now. If anyone knows any "real-word information", edit the articles. Aolynthon (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Seinfeld articles has no bearing on whether these articles should exist. See WP:WAX. It may be that the Seinfeld episode articles shouldn't exist either. Otto4711 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The List of episodes for this show doesn't even have summaries on that page, so lets take what we can and use it there. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to List of Oz episodes. You were correct in doing this initially, as these articles are nothing but WP:PLOT and are not individually notable on their own. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Delete - Whatever applies, the articles do not need to exist in their current state. TTN (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of Oz episodes. I doubt that any publications were reviewing episodes of a cable show in late 90s. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also per above. Earth bending master 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117906371.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 provides a review partly at an episode level. As this series was extremely well (and often) reviewed at the time, I suspect many other reviews exist. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=oz+visits-conjugal-and-otherwise+review&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&cid=8577865733898428. While the reviews are all about Oz, they all include one of the episode names. Most I can't get to, but 20 articles that include a single episode name is darn impressive.Hobit (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Trojans[edit]

Should be merged with North Hall High School, and in fact, the encyclopedic portion of the content is already present there. However, this article should also be deleted because the article name is too general and thus prone to collisions. Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: band fails WP:MUSIC. Don't recommend redirection to the specific high school mentioned since many high schools use the same mascot. Mh29255 (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school band program that competes in its state division. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. The band is covered in full (if not excessive) detail North Hall High School article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cixilibrium (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I thought someone was nominating USC's band or something at first =D. Also is not notable enough for its own article. Malinaccier (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not redirect, as it's a very generic article title, and not merge either, as all the pertinent info is already in North Hall High School. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. KrakatoaKatie 07:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Your Life[edit]

Also included in this AfD:

Wrap Your Lips Around This

Imagine Your Life is a non-notable unreleased album which says it was to be the follow up to a second non-notable unreleased album, Wrap Your Lips Around This. Article admits albums were never released and makes no claim to notability. A couple of the songs on Wrap Your Lips Around This had videos made of them but that makes the songs notable, not the unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Unreleased albums can be notable, but these ones just don't have enough reliable information to warrant pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable, unreleased, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both, unreleased albums, and without any notability of their own. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Breaks Vol. 1[edit]

Non notable compilation album. RJC ^Talk 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSIC, not a notable album. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Dresel[edit]

I'm not quite sure about this one. It was marked for CSD as a NN bio, but seeing as he's apparently performed with Andy Summers and people like that, he may have a claim to notability. The lack of citations concerns me though. (Procedural nom) Keilana^talk 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BLP, lack of citations = delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like some citation was added haven't had a chance to look at the links though.Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the external links are supposed to be references, they should be so labeled. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources provided, and a quick search doesn't look promising. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Article needs work, but should not be deleted. He's performed with lots of notable people on lots of notable albums. He's not a star on his own, but he's done plenty of notable work and is worthy of an article. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I couldn't find any primary sources; the fact that he's performed with Andy Summers is promising, but notability isn't inherited; that one incident can't prop up an article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bencsik[edit]

lacks notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2008

Comment - The article alleges that she's on the executive board of the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm unaware on if being on the exec board of major parties counts towards notability on its own or not. That's going to be her main claim to notability though. matt91486 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Also note that there is likely COI issues as it looks like liberal party members have been busy editting the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak de;lete This is stretching it just a little too far. DGG (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with DGG above, the notability is stretched too thin here. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of minimal notability at best; despite her inclusion in Category:Persons having won a party's nomination for the 40th Canadian federal election, I have yet to find any indication — not even on her own website, let alone in outside media sources — that she's actually won nomination to stand as an electoral candidate. If she has won a nomination, then merge into Liberal Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election under the appropriate electoral district. If she hasn't, then delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date if circumstances warrant. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable independent sources of notability.--Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time (album)[edit]

Crystal balling here; still a little too early to warrant a page on this album in my opinion. The one-paragraph Billboard citation doesn't warrant substantial coverage in my opinion. The same is true of the only other reliable source I could find about this album -- this two-paragraph bit from GAC. Suggesting deletion, but with no prejudice against re-creation once more info is known about the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing per addition of verifiable information by User:Eric444. ~~However, as others have !voted delete, I can't close this one up yet.~~ Closed per change of "delete" !votes to "keep". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ballery. The references don't consitute significant coverage, so it doesn't pass WP:N... Yet. No prejudice against recreation. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards keep. References look fine now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, crystall ball work here. Recreate when there is more substantial material so that we can verify claims made in the article. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, looks better now, but hopefully will be expanded past a stub once the album is actually released. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Keilana^talk 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaCollinaTuscany[edit]

Article is unsourced, lacks context, and written like a travel brochure VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. My otters and I endorse G11 tag already placed on the article. It definitely looks like advertising to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as was tagged by me before this AfD nomination. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your G11 and raise you a G12 as copyvio of http://lacollinatuscany.com/ , so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep).JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Manukyan[edit]

Biography of young classical composer: Independent sources are scarce as are other indications of notability Tikiwont (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources are removed, please remove deletion notice. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild firebird (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing specificly wrong or false in the article. Please, remove the deletion notice ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild firebird (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails Wikipedia's criteria for notable people. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no problem with the article. Take it out of the delete list. It confirms perfectly with the Wikipedia rules 12.34.80.98 (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aparrently no published material; not yet notable. Note: page content is also very heavily based on The Official Edward Manukya website. Ros0709 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I've carefully checked the updates since I first examined the article and have concluded that whilst it is true that he very much fails Criteria for composers and lyricists we do have published independent evidence of a minor concert performance and forthcoming CD release. Other articles have snuck into Wikipedia on less, so I am ambivalent about this now. Ultimately this matters little as this is not a vote but a recommendation to the reviewing administrator, and (s)he is going to have to be swayed, not me. Techincally, I still believe that delete is the only allowable result according to the rules - it just depends on how stringently they are applied. Ros0709 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment.Well, thanks for that. I am sure that more relevant information will be contributed soon. Let us not forget that it is imposible to objectively determine the notability of a Post-Soviet composer without knowing the Russian and Armenian sources, the languages and cultures in which he is most relevant. However, I believe that all that is available at this point is more than enough for allowing the article to remain in Wikipedia - especially taking into account the potential updates, which depend on future events, such as concerts and publication of material.Wild firebird (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More editing has been made Let's leave the composer's biography alone. Shall we? There actually IS a lot of published material, please do not post unsupported claims. 71.129.175.164 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is this published material? Please indicate where I can obtain sheet music or CDs of this composer from a recognised publisher (not the composer himself). I shall reconsider my delete if it indeed exists. (The obvious plagiarism of the composer's website would still be an issue - but that is not the justification for this AFD.) Ros0709 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. In this day and age many professional composers do not depend on publishing companies. Self-publishing is increasingly considered the best option for most contemporary composers, and mainstream publishing companies are losing business, just as the recording companies are. (Read this article: http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=5011 ). However, this particular composer has a set-up date with a major orchestra for a CD and DVD production ( see: http://www.edwardmanukyan.com/music.html ). Destroying his entry seems a bit unfare at this time. If there is any plagiarism left, we can delete or modify them... but not the entire page. Wild firebird (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here is additional data: http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=10fp07 Wild firebird (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The world-famous composer Philip Glass is a self-published musician, and so are countless others. Publishing should never be an issue in such debates.67.131.201.50 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having said the above, I continue insisting that the article should remain in Wikipedia. The composer was an official "resident composer" with the Armenian "Renaissance" Chamber Orchestra (from 1999 to 2002). He holds a Master of Music Degree in composition, and in addition to his career in Armenia, he has had a number of concerts in United States as well, and his music has been performed by recognised orchestras. I also have a reliable conformation of a serious project with the Armenian State Philharmonic Orchestra, scheduled for this summer (2008), among many other project. Taking into account all the info I have provided, along with what is available from the composer's website and other sources, deleting this entry would be a vandalism. I suggest that we remove the deletion notice immediately. Wild firebird (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If it is demonstrated that one or more of the six Criteria for composers and lyricists have been met then the article should stay. At present I do not believe any has been, but I advise that you consider expanding upon those concerts, in the article rather than here, in order to satisfy the second criterion: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. Future events require more care still - see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ros0709 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Front page article in (fairly minor) paper plus other references seem sufficient that he meets notability guidelines. Multiple independent reliable third part sources and all that. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I wish he were notable. I hope he becomes notable. But he is not notable yet. None of these are major musical groups. DGG (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, See comment bellow.Shanongeorge (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DGG, you are wrong. The "Renaissance" Chamber Orchestra, the LA Winds and, of course, the Armenian Phil (scheduled for a performance and recording - Sept 2008) are all major orchestras. Other orchestras mentioned in the article may be of minor significance, but the three mentioned above are all more than enough for him to meet the notability guidelines. Please, do a fair research before you post such a comment.Wild firebird (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feeble Keep, presence of indepedent news coverage plus work with mid-level orchestras probably just tips him over the line. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep, it's not only about the independent news covarage and the composer's professional accomplishments... the confirmed collaboration with a world-class orchestra such as the Armenian State Philharmonic Orchestra simply demands that this discussion be over.Shanongeorge (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Performances by major ensembles aren't part of any of the WP:Music notability criteria. Like Lankiveil said, he has a weak shot at notability from press coverage... but of the two articles mentioned, one (Roundup) looks trivial from the image. So unfortunately he doesn't satisfy #1 for musicians and ensembles either, which stipulates coverage in several articles. SingCal (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If performances by major orchestras aren't part of the notability criteria, then the vote submitted by DGG(along with other arguments posted here) are irrelevant. My research, using the composer's name in Russian and Armenian (Эдуард Манукян, Эдвард Манукян, Էդվարդ Մանուկյան), found some more independent sourses supporting the composer's notability. It can be easily demonstrated from various sources that a concert tour of Armenia (of about 20 concerts) is to be undertaken by Manukyan and composer/conductor John Kennedy this summer, with the Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra. There have also been a few important newspaper reviews in Armenia (one by Aravot) which couldnot be found online. So far, not all paper media in the former Soviet republics have established consistent online presence. The cultural bias should be taken into full account. To me, this case is closed, and the article should remain in Wikipedia.Shanongeorge (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through the whole discussion and it is my opinion that people here seem to evaluate an Armenian composer based on his notability outside Armenia. It hasn't been more than 5 years since he has relocated to California, and publications in US media may be a little scarce, but even before moving to US, the composer had a fairly public career in Armenia both as a songwriter and jazz pianist. There have been concerts in Armavir Red Palace, Yerevan Youth Center, Paplovok Jazz Club, the US Embassy in Armenia and many other venues... As a matter of fact, I myself created this original entry, which initially was a brief info about the composer. I might be able to find some reviews of his old concerts from some Armenian archives but I still don't think it's absolutely necessary. He does meet the guidline even with what has been presented so far. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to find information about such contemporary composers on wikipedia. He is indeed quite relevant in Armenia and has a growing success in the United States as well. Pantonal (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently been detained in a murder investigation, and (if it's the same one) is a member of the governmental council in Armenia ([26]). I'm not sure if those are the same Edward Manukyans, though. The rest of the links on the Google search aren't very helpful. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, The composer, today, is 27. He couldn't have been 28 in 2003. So definately not the killer! )))) 67.131.201.50 (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not even 27. He is 26. :)) Wild firebird (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming events, I was able to confirm that there will be newspaper articles and interviews with Manukyan relating to two compositions he wrote dedicated to scientists James Watson and Francis Crick, on the occasion of Dr. Watson's 80th birthday (Apr. 6). This page from the composers website gives a few details: http://www.edwardmanukyan.com/James_Watson.html Wild firebird (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 although leaning more towards keep --JForget 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Asia[edit]

The phrase "North Asia" is not commonly used, and does not have a commonly accepted definition. (Web search shows a few uses with various conflicting ad hoc definitions.) The other regions (E,SE,S,Central,West Asia) have UN geoscheme definitions but this does not. JWB (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Asia before meant Soviet Asia, with the breakup of the USSR, the former Soviet republics in Asia except Russia and the three Caucasus republics became "Central Asia" while the Caucasus either became European or SW Asian depending on which authority and category you consult, then Russia east of the Urals became North Asia. So the most logical thing to do is to redirect this to Siberia. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that definition of North Asia?

Search on "north asia" shows the term has wildly different definitions, many of which do not contain Siberia at all.

United Nations geoscheme does not include a North Asia.

The most accurate thing to say about "North Asia" would be that it does not have a generally accepted definition, and is only used when it is arbitrarily defined for convenience, from various incompatible viewpoints. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most we can say is that North Asia contains all areas of Asia not already included in other regions - but that's OR. If there's no consensus on a particular region to describe in this article, I'd recommend that the name be redirected to Asia itself. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with other parts of Asia, although I had a funny feeling about this article the first time I saw it, that it was kind of unencyclopedic. Equally, redirecting to Siberia could be OK. The term "North Asia" gets lots of Google hits, and turns up a lot in Books and Scholar. That should make it notable, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there isn't an agreed standard and the term isn't widely used, its hard to see what this article can actually be about. What's there now is clearly original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - better to use UN geoscheme definitions. Does appear to have WP:NOR issues. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is apparently a Phillips world atlas that tried to redefine the earth, this is a term that doesn't seem to have caught on. The same atlas refers to "West Asia" which is mostly the "Middle East". Kind of like "Western Eurasia", this is a term that nobody actually uses. Mandsford (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Asia is little used (although it gets a bit more use in places like India and Australia) but at least it is a little better defined. North Asia seems to vary between Siberia and various ad hoc combinations of East Asian countries. I only wonder whether we should have a page (or a subsection of Asia) that actually explains this. --JWB (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you guys have written most of the article about how it is not well defined here. Competing sources are sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a policy that search results are not citable as references? People have deleted my references before, claiming this. --JWB (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep the term is widely used, and the citations show it. ditto for West Asia,etc. popularly thought-of regions, however poorly defined, are notable. DGG (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep North Asia's existence is verifiable and there are a lot of sources out there. The lack of consensus on these sources does not mean that we should delete the article. The fact that it is not used by U.N. is not a grounds for deletion if the term predates the UN.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a widely used term it should be here. If it's primarily a historically-used term, that's irrelevant with regard to the existence of an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep A good term for a geographic area that otherwise would not be defined. It is certainly NOT 'Eastern Europe', as the UN map referenced above would have you believe. UN is a political organization, not one of geographic scholarship. Hmains (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current rewrite fine by me Will ^(talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge as necessary. Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Dad[edit]

Delete - prod removed by anon, which, whatever. Fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that demonstrate that this fictional TV show has any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't demonstrate notability outside of Married... with Children universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to my surprise, significantly many relevant ghits and seems to be used as a cultural touchpoint by people; there's enough to make an article though this one needs work. JJL (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any in a search. Could you please share some of the relevant hits you found? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through the results of a Google search on this term [27] I was surprised by how many of the 91k hits for it were relevant, and by how many were fan pages for it (this [28] is from the 32nd page of the search), by how many references there were to it among fictional TV shows and dads (e.g. [www.tvsquad.com/2007/09/13/top-ten-tv-psychos/] from the 33rd page of the search), and by how many blogs, bands [29], etc. use it as a reference. Not the most compelling case ever, I'll grant, but I was surprised by its prevalence. Many of these hits have the lyrics so unlike [30], [31] it's easy to tell it isn't a coincidental use of the term. JJL (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep - The Psycho Dad fictional TV show has real-world notability like youtube which is a reliable source that reflects popular culture- Psycho Dad YouTube Search - Psycho Dad Compilation and Psycho Mom,people on MySpace also use it as their profile name- MySpace PsychoDad - Another MySpace PsychoDad, and there is also a fan-made lyrics page - Psycho Dad Fan's Lyrics therefore I recommend it should be kept.Seralph — Seralph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Youtube is not a reliable source and has never been a reliable source for the notability of anything. Provide published commentary. Your other links are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into MWC or Al Bundy article. Great show-within-a-show though! Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the MWC article. No notability outside of the television programme. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Married with Children or Al Bundy article. There is no reliable sources that prove it's notable outside of the series. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The McQueen Sisters[edit]

Redirect Nonsense. Totally unnecesscary beside from the BB thing. Easily redirected to one of the character's articles.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a large fan base for The McQueen sisters, both on and off Hollyoaks. This page is more about the BB thing, but also for character/family history. Arneldo (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But a large fan base doesn't make them notable. There isn't any criteria to prove that they pass WP:FICT--Hiltonhampton (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- --Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary - Each of the fictional sisters currently has their own article. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superfluous to other articles. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicated and inferior content. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. ― LADY GALAXY 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Kappa[edit]

Fails N. Only one chapter located at one college. Also, the article looks like an advertisement. miranda 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Being located at only on school is certainly not grounds in of itself for being deleted. Many one school organizations are very powerful with long and storied histories. The machine at Alabama the secret societies of the Ivy league are just a few better known. However in this case the article is poorly written reads like an advert and when i did a search to see if i could expand it i came up with nothing. Still i want to stress that i believe that using a one school notability criteria is treading on dangerous ground and could run the risk of bias or just plain old losing good articles on good organizations.Trey (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn - as is fails WP:N. The mention of the society on the school article page should suffice. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless news coverage in WP:RS can be found. JJL (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't matter how many chapters the organisation has, so long as it meets the required standards of WP:N and WP:V. This does not. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Looks like a lot like a hoax to me. Says its been around since 1928 and only has a Tripod page ??? Proove me wrong and I'll switch my opinion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Indian Dog[edit]

Article has been deleted in the past by Proposed Deletion. Article subject is a new proprietary dog breed; there are no third party references listed, and after an internet search no reputable sources of information were found. Article contains a number of commercial external links Pesco (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I think the real issues are that it's hard to find reliable sources on the article subject and, since there doesn't seem to be any independant commentary on the breed, it hasn't demonstrated its notability. --Pesco (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree article is pretty spammy at present. If this is a legitimate breed then an article on it is warranted (same as any legitimate breed of livestock maintained by a breed society). The spam links would need to go though. I sent a message to one of the dog breeder editors to see what they have to offer on this? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not AKC or UKC recognized. See WP:Articles for deletion/British Bulldogge for a very similar case from this time last year. Tevildo (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm starting to agree with you. I still haven't heard back from the dog breeder? It also states on the article that they were going to continue working on it but nothings been done and that tells me they are just using it as an advertisement. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't see it staying as is. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: All right, I've done some heavy updating on the page, adding information, references, and trying to cut down on non-objective language. I hope these edits are sufficient. If not, let me know what I need to do, and I'll do it.

EDIT 3: I was unaware that there were any puppy-mill associations with NKC. Is there some more authoritative (no offense meant) source available on exactly what's wrong with them? I'll do some Googling, but, honestly, that post didn't contain enough information for me to determine if it was a good warning or just sour grapes from an AKC supporter. Incidentally, the charges about them being bred for appearance alone are untrue -- Night Eyes, at least, is very insistent upon breeding for temperament. My experience with this breed and its breeders is the diametric opposite of what the hoax pages would lead you to expect, which is precisely why I wanted to make a relatively neutral page for the breed. They do exist, they will continue to exist, and while I can't speak for Majestic View, Night Eyes is an ethical kennel which takes extremely good care of its dogs and is very choosy about who is allowed to buy one. She's about as far from a puppy mill as it's possible to get. So I'm a bit skeptical about this NKC = Puppy Mill business, no offense meant. Nanimwe (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Dogbreedinfo.com was an interesting site actually.[32] Add any reference sources you can fine. Any articles about them been published in papers. I'll say more on your talk page. Don't reply here please. Keep comments on AfD page short. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make sure it's really neutral. In my vast (really) experience with wikipedia dog-breed articles is that, if there are people selling them by that name, the article will be recreated over and over. It's better to have the article and try to make sure that it clarifies as neutrally as possible that this is a developing breed, there might be only a couple of breeders doing it, that its legitimacy is still debatable, and cite ANY kinds of references that one can find. I do think that it's very hard to put info on the breed about its temperament, size, etc. when it's not even close to being a fully developed breed yet. As for the NKC giving it an air of authenticity--bah humbug. (However, we also don't need to require that a dog be recognized by the AKC to be legit--they've got their own issues.) Elf | Talk 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if allowing an article topic that only has unverifiable and possibly biased sources to exist merely because it might be created again based on the same sources is the best reason to keep an article, but I do understand the thought. In your opinion, is there a dog breed article that would serve as a good model for this case? --Pesco (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per what seems to be a persistent lack of reliable sources. The possibility of recreation is not unique to dog-breed articles, but not a good reason to keep it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete and create redirect to List of Mortal Kombat Conquest episodes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Reality[edit]

This article violates WP:PLOT, even a television show needs to have more information than simply a plot summary. -- Atama ^chat 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is just a plot summary without anything to establish its relevance in the real world. TTN (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat Conquest episodes, plot summary, nothing to indicate that this episode is particularly notable or important. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lukki[edit]

Appears to have no qualification under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Perhaps asserts enough notability to not qualify for a speedy delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is maybe just this side of A7, but this person clearly isn't notable. A search for "Lukki" and various keywords turned up no coverage in any reliable sources -- just MySpace and forums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn - Apart from the forums and MySpace I did manage to find this [33]. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an A7, but still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and doesn't meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been cleaned up greatly following nomination and consensus has shifted to keep (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roseland Public School[edit]

This article is a not notable school. It has been put with a {{prod}} tag, which was then removed by the original editor. It claims to have 600 students (not exactly exceptional), with some events that is not unique. Doing a google search, I see nothing asserting importance. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable school. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy General notability guideline. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did you read that part about 4 large hallways? ;D Non-notable Elementary School. Malinaccier (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to snowball this one. Obviously, this is written by a student at the elementary school, either because (a) it's a class project that could, possibly, have additions that show school notability or (b) it's the kid's first foray into Wikipedia, and there's no need to shoot this down immediately. Merge isn't likely (Windsor, located across the bridge from Detroit, is fairly large). In all likelihood, Mertozoro, it'll be deleted after about five days, so don't take it personally when that happens. Everything is published on Wikipedia for awhile, but not everything gets to stay there permanently. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if your first contribution isn't a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've done some digging, and found that Roseland Public School is probably notable. Not only can I expand and source many things about the school, but it was the subject of a high-profile intruder incident, as well as a lawsuit for libeling the schools images. That's among just a few things; I can source many other notable or interesting things about the school. --Haemo (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - checking the version that was nominated for this AfD and the current version tells me this article has potential to evolve further. Well done to Haemo for the effort. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: A single link to the subject's own website is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The numerous other sources I added should suffice. --Haemo (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Haemo's excellent work, the article meets WP:ORG with multiple, independent, nontrivial, reliable sources. Noroton (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — meets notability guidelines following my, and User:Galaxy250's cleanup. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has a chance of being a good article. It looks like someone has already edited it to make it look better. 195.229.236.217 (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significantly improved with many sources from reliable sources establishing notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point, as good an article about an elementary school as there is likely to be. DGG (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I don't think that elementary schools are notable in general, but this is about as good an article for one as I've seen. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Editors are free to create a redirect if it is deemed useful. Pastordavid (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Paul[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:Burzmali. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) No notability on her own, medical information isn't appropriate and might need oversighting, fails WP:BLP1E. Burzmali (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Oversight - While the health info is probably not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, the article is does not appear to be approriate for Wikipedia either. Oversight removes individual edits from an article's history so they are not available for review. Per Wikipedia:Oversight there are three reasons to use this feature, none of which apply here as the content is released as public knowledge as shown in the reference in the article.
- 1 Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
- 2 Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
- 3 Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
- Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being married to someone notable doesn't make her notable. She doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy, and the sources all seem to be about them as a couple and not her specifically. Mention in Ron Paul's article, and delete this. TJ Spyke 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ron Paul Same as what Tj Spyke said. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. ("That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability.") --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Newsroom hierarchies, the article itself makes no assertion of notability independent of Ron Paul. --- tqbf 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ron Paul. No evidence of individual notability. JJL (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ron Paul per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feedback ^☎ 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Gravel indicates lack of support for "Just being the wife of a candidate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited, merely being married to a possible candidate for high office isn't enough to satisfy WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as she doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy, with a possible oversight on the health information. - Revolving Bugbear 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to Ron Paul, and delete. She's not notable in her own right, and notability is not inherited. Terraxos (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (not transferable from her husband). Merge not necessary as it is expected that Ron Paul's bio will include extensive coverage of her. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASPIRA[edit]

While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG. Longevity of the organization -- the organization is almost 50 years old and has spawned numerous organizations around the country, including a national organization. It was also a litigant in a major public school education lawsuit in the early 1970s. Google news, google scholar, and even google books show numerous cites. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lquilter. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom's Five[edit]

Non-notable comic book group. They appeared in a flashback in an issue of Invaders in 1976. Outside of this flashback the group has not made any appearances. Stephen Day (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Redirecting to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like a sensible compromise to me. I'd like to withdraw my nomination and close the debate. Stephen Day (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appeared in one comic in the 70s. No real world notability or sources, so fails WP:FICT. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, or Merge and Redirect to either Union Jack (comics) or Phantom Eagle. BOZ (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is where we come to one of the problems with this article's creation. Its not signficant enough for inclusion, but doesn't have a definative enough destination page to be a useful redirect either. If there is a choice between the two, Phantom eagle makes more sense. Due to his lack of appearances its a bigger part of that character's history than Union Jack's. Even with this choice, the redirect is more awkward than helpful though. Stephen Day (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Redirecting to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems to be exceptable to me. Stephen Day (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought so. :) If you're comfortable with it, you can withdraw the nomination and we can do a redirect, or you can wait to see how the consensus goes. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How do I withdraw a nomination? Stephen Day (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure - I think you just need to say it somewhere here, as the nominator, and then an admin will close it? Maybe make a note after your opening statement. If it's clear that you intend to redirect and no one's objecting, the AFD close should be uncontroversial. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for this fictional entity hasn't been established. Only one reference, and it's a primary source. Since it fails WP:FICT, it should go. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above; not enough notability to establish worth as own article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Per above. Earth bending master 03:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Note how the word no is a dab page, as it should be. RightGot (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discusses notable usage of the word, more than a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per andy. Jonathan 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Canley (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God (word)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is dictionary material. I'm nominating the following entries for deletion for the same reason:

RightGot (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All three have far more information than would be appropriate for a dictionary definition. Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean Wikipedia can't have encyclopedia articles about individual words. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note how rape (word), a similar article to these was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape (word). These should be deleted too. Etymologies are for a dictionary, not Wikipedia. RightGot (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- these are not dicdefs. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Orange", Delete "God" and "Man". "God" and "Man" are, per nom, just about etymology (with some irrelevant Tolkien material in "Man", which is already covered in Man (Middle-earth)): "Orange" is actually about the _word_, particularly about its famous non-rhymability. Tevildo (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per andy. Jonathan 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

‎

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

I (pronoun)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating the following similar entries:

Keep - Not only a dictionary definition, but a detailed etymological history. Worthy of being in an encyclopedia; a useful article. Max Naylor (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An etymological history belongs in a dictionary. RightGot (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RightGot (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Max Naylor. Georgia guy (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep all for consistency. "You", "it" and "she" are all more than simple etymology; the others less so ("He", in particular, is in great need of improvement), but (despite precedent not applying here) I think it would be perverse to just keep the three satisfactory articles and delete the rest. Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- per Max Taylor. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, Max Naylor. Max Naylor (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Max Naylor. Jonathan 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

‎