Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author requested deletion) by PeterSymonds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Riachi

Procedural nomination — tag was placed on article by User:Adonisadora but not followed through. ... discospinster _talk 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The X-15s

Easy one that I'm not sure I could speedy delete. Effortlessly fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. Easy delete, guys. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Easily a speedy delete candidate. Libs (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Personally I would have A7'd it. It fails notability and lacks sources Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:31:06 00:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy delete. Given that they appear to be available to do weddings [1], I'd say that's pretty strong evidence of non-notability. Though if anyone can come forward with any evidence that R.E.M. are available to do weddings, please go to my talk page urgently and give me a contact phone number ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They seem to be available, but I'm afraid I haven't got the phone number. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. However, being available for private parties does not mean non-notable. You can get Harry Connick Jr., Harry Belafonte, and Paul Anka to sing at your birthday party (If you've got the money to throw around). -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Andres

As an artist he fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. No sources to back up claims. Hasn't had a glittering music career that would deem him notable for his own article. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn subject. Libs (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Ace Andres has a cult following in The San Fracisco Bay Area, Nashville Tenn. and Atlanta GA. Has been highly publicized by Silicon Valey's "Wave" Magazine and referred to as a Guitar god. Ace Andres was a featured Artist on San Francisco's KGO Radio 810 AM(Top 10 AM Stations in the country) by TV and Radio personality "Pete Wilson". Cowboy Hat Blues was played on various Country format stations and Ace's version of "California Dreamin' is still among the most digially downloaded "cover" version of the song. Ace Andres is also Linked internally to Jill Gibson's page (formerly known as Momma Jill) from the 60's supergroup "The Mamas and the Papas". As Jill recorded with Ace in 2002. Ace's Song and Video "Save Me" is used by various "Right to life" group websites Such as Abortion 911 and the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation The fact that Ace Andres is one of a handful of conservative Rock Musicians (such as the Wright brothers and Ted Nugent) should merit his own article. Ace Andres is a political activist as well as a recording musician. He openly debated congressman Bill Baker (R)Ca in 1995 and was interviewed the next day on the "Savage Nation" by best selling author Michael Savage on KSFO. Since then he has been a frequent guest on the Michael Savage show and "The O'Riley Factor". I assume Wikipedia does not want to be politically biased. Please re-evaluate current page changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey Evans (talk • contribs) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND: his albums all seem to be self-released. What media attention he has received, for his music or his politics, seems to be minor. His biggest claim to notability is the assertion that one of his songs got used as bumper music by several conservative talk shows, but it doesn't say which ones, and it, like everything else in the article, is totally unsourced. As for the implication that deleting this would make Wikipedia politically biased, it's not like we're missing an article on Ted Nugent. — Gwalla | Talk 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new references insert in section 4 Joey Evans (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see two links to The Wave (seems like a local magazine?), one profile promoting an upcoming show in the Oakland Tribune, and one to a page of videos of Terri Schiavo. Those media mentions aren't enough to demonstrate notability per WP:BAND, and the Schiavo one doesn't mention Ace Andres at all. — Gwalla | Talk 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response

The Wave Magazine has a very large northern California circulation. Unfortunately The Terri Schiavo website has archived the video And Since the passing of Pete Wilson, KGO Radio's Website archived Pete's "Best Of" report Which actually rated Ace Andres #8 (just above Yesterday and Today's Dave Menneketti)It's not Ace's fault that Pete Wilson died last year of a heart attack. That "promotion" in the Tribune was actually a full page interview that ran in all of the "Media News Group" Sunday inserts. Ace was on the front cover with Parker Posey. In response to the Ted Nugent statement, true, you're not missing a Nugent article, but in the entertainment industy, how many politically active conservative artist do you feature? For every conservative artist, you probably have 10,000 liberal artists. It's just the nature of the industry. And if you continue to delete conservative artists; what fun would that be? Who else writes songs about "Pro-Life" issues? And yes, Dr.Laura's producer Ben Pratt, played the controversial song "Save Me" for several weeks in 2006 as bumper music. Call the station and ask him. Joey Evans (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, none of that makes him notable by Wikipedia's standards. BTW, we also delete liberal artists. And a lot of artists whose political inclinations are unknown to us. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of musicians. Also, please format your replies. They're hard to read as big unbroken blocks of text. — Gwalla | Talk 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you were a pro-life conservative you would know who this artist is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey Evans (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And this matters because? JuJube (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional in nature, not meeting the Wikipedia standards. In these kinds of discussions, "cult following" almost always equates to "not notable". JuJube (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spoke with Ace Andres last night and told him that you were planning to delete his article. His response was: "Tell them God bless them and to go do what they feel they have to do, then enjoy this Holiday weekend." Joey Evans (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My New Haircut

NN internet meme. WP:V, no WP:RS from which to write the article -- Y not be working? 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems pretty decent and with a lot of work it could be fixed up --Vhoscythe^chatter 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article surpases notability, and is a popular meme. It could be fixed up in time. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:33:09 00:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Looks like it has verifiability covered, but a subject like this needs a strong burden of proof. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwePhone

Non-notable software. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability, sounds like advertisement/personal thing someone made and decided to create a wiki for. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MBisanz ^talk 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Very bad quality and strong fails WP:N. AlwaysOnion (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertising.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Sexauer

Article "Marcus Sexauer" recreated after Deleted according to CSD 7. Article's body replaced with content from Article "Marcus Aurelius." MasterDarksol (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. ... discospinster _talk 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Loesha Balzary

Non-notable. TFA's two notability assertions are that she's the daughter of a notable musitcian (Flea), and that she's been in a couple of bands. Notability is not contagious, so the first claim fails. The bands don't seem to pass WP:MUSIC, so being their drummer certainly doesn't make her notable. -- Mark Chovain 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 1.5 year old article with no notability of the subject. Notability is not inherited. No coverage from independent sources. Artene50 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 Japanese Birds

Contested PROD: upcoming album with no reliable sources - sole source is a link to a forum added when the PROD tag was removed. Google search has a few appearances in listings, but certainly nothing that would count as a Reliable Source. Stormie (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be happening soon and no references --Vhoscythe^chatter 23:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://blog. myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=60344573&blogID=410637164 Dadaesque (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Dadaesque (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album hasn't been released, though, has it? "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable" --Stormie (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll vote delete then.Dadaesque (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. I removed the sole claimed reference source as it was to a discussion forum requiring registration, and therefore not suitable as a Wikipedia external link. Article can be recreated once album has actually been released and received non-trivial press coverage. --DAJF (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Merzbow albums lists 139 albums. Among them are Dolphin Sonar (album), an article on a forthcoming album, created July 2. One might ask whether other albums by Merzbow meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's best done at another time in a different discussion. Here it can be considered a red herring. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dope Boys

Nonnotable single (per WP:MUSIC#Songs). Contested prod. Thin boy 00 @986, i.e. 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was deprodded without comment by an anon; possibly the author forgot to log in. Thin boy 00 @989, i.e. 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L.A.X., unreleased single from unrelease album. --Stormie (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L.A.X., article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think the single has been officially released and hasn't charted yet. The article can be recreated if and when it charts. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Young

Unnotable author. Fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and I have not found any sources that would help to establish notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability per this; no decent sources can be located on-line. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per above, I also did a Lexis-Nexis search, which came back with just one result. - JulesN Talk 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Girlfriend as the content has already been merged there. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady friend

This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article. Georgia guy (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merge to girlfriend for now; we'll see how that works out and revisit the issue later if needed. The concept of the lady friend is an important cultural phenomenon. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girlfriend. "Lady friend" already has a wiktionary entry. [2] Pop Secret (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girlfriend. The article does not do a good job of showing how it is an "an important cultural phenomenon". tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with a redirect to "girlfriend" is that "lady friend" is not exactly the same concept. If it were, then there would be no need for people to make the distinction. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Then maybe merge with Girlfriend? tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We'll see if any editors of the girlfriend article object. That article seems overly short, by the way; it may be that those interested in the subject focused their efforts in other articles such as romantic relationship and didn't want to have the content overlap. In that case, we might very well do a merge there as well. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seventh Generation and no consensus to delete Jeffrey Hollender.--Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Hollender

Recommend deletion of the following for WP:NN, WP:SPAM: Student7 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for WP:NN and WP:SPAM:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. (for --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. The awards and other accomplishments, as reported in multiple reliable sources, demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both (snowball in the case of 7th Generation). Clearly notable - substantial coverage in many major reliable sources, nationwide distribution of products. There is encyclopedic material in both articles. Please review deletion guidelines - we improve weak articles, don't delete them. Wikidemo (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A news search for Hollander shows nothing but press releases and self-written blogs; on this basis he is not notable. As for the company article, in my eyes it reads as blatant advertising, but it seems notable based on [3] and [4]. The list of awards is a burden on the article; all companies receive awards, and though I have respect for this companies uniqueness, the wholeness of the article makes it spam—there is no balance in it; it is obviously written in by a profound supporter or insider of the company, and completely fails to fall into the category of encyclopedic articles. The detail of the list of products smells even worse. If someone should succeed at removing this profaneness I would of course change my vote as to the company, but right now it is very close to CDS#G11. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both I don't think that either article should be deleted because they are both of significance. They may both need to be worked on but there is value in both of the articles. Daniellealexander23 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7th, move worthwhile material here to subsection on Hollender, eliminating 3/4ths of the material under hollender
- Delete Hollender. The 7th page reads like a list, the biographical information, in 4 or 5 sentences would break the overly list like nature of the page.PB666 ^yap 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 7th generation, an extremely well known brand. NPOV needs to be looked at with respect to the reviews of its products. Im not sure whether or not Hollander has any independent notability. DGG (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Product list is similar to Burt's Bees. Hollender (note spelling when searching for articles) speaks extensively -- I've seen him a dozen times (and will go to conferences just to hear him speak). Expert in the field of natural products and sustainable business practices. (Cmiddings)

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

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

The result was Keep. The added references helped bring about a consensus that the subject is indeed notable. Though whether or not the content should be merged into a (yet to exist) PEZ master list, is an editorial matter that can be discussed in the usual manner, as and when. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars pez

This is a list of indiscriminate information and appears to be fancruft Madcoverboy (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), What Wikipedia is, WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deletion, and per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built (article is an obvious work in progress that is mere hours old and clearly improving per [5]). Recommend retitling to capitalize the "w" in "wars" to be "Wars." In any event, the topic is covered in published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. no claim of notability is possible. References are of poor quality --T-rex 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a good reason for deletion and as for claim of notability, appeareances in published books as well as coutless other good quality references takes care of that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - per nom is a great reason to use. it's simply saying that i agree with the nominators reasoning for deletion. Also google search results do not constitute "good quality references", especially when the first result is "SpectrumNet Web Pages - Wacky Unique Family Fun Museums in the San Francisco Bay Area" --T-rex 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a poor reason when the nomination is based on WP:ITSCRUFT and calling a discrminate list "indiscriminate". The results in the google search constitute good quality references if you weed through them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRUFT is a great reason to delete. and there still are no good sources at all. I looked at your google link, and it's all shit. --T-rex 04:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Cruft" is the worst reason possible to delete as it is pure subjectivity, not a policy or guideline, and incivil, i.e. not one to be used in a serious or respectful discussion. Published books are indeed good sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What published books? The one link you provided is a single page in a picture book. see need sources --T-rex 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other published books also reference the Star Wars pez dispensers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this link doesn't load. --T-rex 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should read before you post. "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom."" DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 02:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case the rationales are subjective essay based ("fancruft" is not policy) and indiscriminate is not accurate as it specifically concerns Star Wars pez dispensers). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Wookipedia. Some articles are suitable in your wikias, not in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why both Wookiepedia and Wikipedia can't cover these sorts of articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason is called "unencyclopedic" --T-rex 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is an "argument" to avoid per WP:UNENCYC. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - unencyclopedic is the single reason anything is deleted --T-rex 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This topic has hundreds of reliable sources available on the internet. A glance at my userpage and my previous contribs in AfDs will show that I am no inclusionist. By the same guidelines and policies that people use to have articles deleted, this article should stay. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modification Is it really necessary to break all the type of Pez dispensers into separate articles? If so, this article should be named as a List of Star Wars dispensers, with Wars capitalized as it is a proper name.Chef Tanner (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to merging and redirecting to a master list of pez dispensers and I definitely agree with the rename aspect or of using the sources available to make the article be more prose in nature as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a master list of dispensers? I glanced the main article for pez and didn't notice it, but I might of missed it. We have lists like that for different cuisines which is why I don't oppose this article, not to mention they are re-releasing all of the Star Trek dispensers so I might be biased (joking).--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. I can find a [[Category:Star_Wars_merchandise]], a star wars merch wiki (to which this info should be transwikied regardless of the outcome), but no List of Star Wars merchandise or Star Wars Merchandise to which this article may be merged. I'm concerned that the two available references both point to sites that SELL these items. That is not a good sign. What remains is a price guide. I am not inclined to feel THAT provides notability for the subject. Were that the case (this isn't WP:OTHERSTUFF), any pez dispenser in the catalog could be deemed notable, because the price guide is the sole reliable source asserting notability (assuming they are mentioned in the price guide). Protonk (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep, given book sourcing. Given the sourcing issues presented in the comment above, I can't really see how notability of this subject is established according to our policies. the reference links to the sale websites probably borderline violates WP:SPAM. If we can find a reliable secondary source which covers these items in a significant fashion, I'll reverse my position. As far as I'm concerned, the Price Guide (if it is anything like other price guides I've seen) is unlikely to present significant coverage. Something like this:

NYT "Boy, these SW Pez dispenzers are super campy, lets have an interview with George Lucas to find out more about them."

GL "I like money, so I plastered the faces of beloved characters on everything."
NYT "Isn't that awful? I mean, you are ruining my childhood"
GL "I'm also a bad director."

NYT "I know. Han shot first, you jerk."

Would be fine. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- They are covered in published books: published books, published books, etc. Multiple references in published sources establishes notability as consistent with our policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. that first one is super sketchy (can barely see the picture among the other merch). The second one is fine. I'll keep it. The links to the sites probably need to go, though. Protonk (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: those links to the websites selling the dispensers are gone. Protonk (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only the news articles didn't have to pull out the puns: "MAY THE PEZ BE WITH YOU CHEWY ON THIS: `STAR WARS' CHARACTERS TO LAND AT CANDY STORE NEAR YOU.(Lifestyle)" and "NEW "STAR WARS" DISPENSERS MAKE THEIR PEZ-ENCE KNOWN.(LIFE)"... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for "Star Wars" +Pez on Google News gets 403 hits. Many of these are not passing mentions, they are articles about the Star Wars Pez dispensers. Some are in supermarket trade pubs, some in regular newspapers. They seem to have released giant Pez just for Star Wars, making them unique. And they charged $25 each for them, a fact mentioned regularly in the sources. It would be great to see these sources turned into a proper article, not just a list. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not cruft: It's verifiable real-world info about real-world items. But I agree that having a seperate article for Star Wars pez is overdoing it, therefore merge and redirect, or keep, at least until a 'master' pez list is created into which it could be merged. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, or, at the very worst, Merge into a master Pez list, per Everyme. GlassCobra 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Garbage WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination. Article needs cleanup and addition of all new sources that have been found with a very simple google search. SashaNein (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is whether candies based on the characters of a particular fiction are worth including in wikipedia. I see no basis for excluding them,if the material can be sourced, and it can be. The reasons given in the nomination do not seem to actually apply: this is not indiscriminate information any more than a list of all the counties in Iowa would be. That they are to trivial to mention is a version of IDONTLIKEIT. At present by the rules, anything that has sources is not too trivial to mention. What would be inappropriate are articles on each of the individual items. It's hard to make a rule about things like this, and the deault is to keep the information. Yes,I agree with the nom that they are not important to me, but that's another matter DGG (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article has been significantly improved over its original form. Actual sources have been added. It has also been transwikied to the Sw merch wiki. It is short and spare and will remain so, but seems to be much better than it was originally. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed in an attempt to meet MOS. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references confirm notability. Everyking (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Panchal

These references, and others, list his name as the Art Director or Designer.

2006 One Show | Mini Cooper Web Banner Campaign
2006 One Show | RoofStudio MicroSite
2006 One Show | Burger King Microsite
2006 One Show | Gap Viral & Email
2006 One Show | MOTORmate Integrated Campaign

--Pbj129 (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references cite Mr. Panchal's work by name, thus fails WP:BIO notability Madcoverboy (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. PB666 ^yap

Delete, fails WP:BIO as non-notable. News search shows nothing; none of the references provided in article actually mention him, or they are not sufficient to be considered reliable. Though he has won many awards, none of these awards seem to be important enough that him winning the award has created media coverage, thus voiding these awards as means to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - may need cleanup but consensus is clearly to keep the article - Peripitus (Talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Plural Marriage

Religious philosophy, citing just one website -- no indication of notability, strong scent of original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just Googled the subject and I don't see coverage by reliable sources. It might be worth redirecting to Polygyny but the content is too vague to justify much, if any, of a merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources. probably WP:NFT --T-rex 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge. Subject has been covered by independent sources, including On Line Opinion (Australian socio-political e-journal) and BBC news. Article can be improved further via copy edit and referenced, and can be considered for merger with Polygyny#Christianity. In respond to the first comment, I don't think "vagueness" is a reason for deletion.-Samuel Tan (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added some independent research. Cnystrom 07:56, 3 July 2006
- Self-interest spammer from yahoo group? See Discussion Hareydog (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's definitely significant historical figures and research on them out there on this topic. e.g. John Humphrey Noyes. I say keep and see what happens. Hard to get volunteers. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian Plural Marriage is a distinct and growing movement which deserves independent coverage. With the 4th of July weekend, I have not had the time to contribute to this subject. This article deserves more time before considering deletion. -- JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-interest spammer from yahoo group? See Discussion Hareydog (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't delete, I wish to contribute to this page. I will add, as time allows, all Scripture based arguments for and against Christian Plural Marriage that I came across in my years of research on the matter. It's important to differentiate between Christian and Mormon Polygyny, IMHO. --RosalynD (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-interest spammer from yahoo group? See Discussion Hareydog (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have just done some clean up on it and linked the short section of Polygyny to it. I am not sure of the correctness of including "evangelical" in the text, but that is a minor quibble. I have not followed up the various notes, but the subject does have sources, no doubt from its proponents. I oppose merger as that would unbalance the article inot which it would be merged. Do not get me wrong: I do not support polygamy, but it deserves discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stanek

This is... well, it's a terrible article, and it has no promise of being good. Back in early 2006, it was created as part of a mass creation of a couple of dozen pages about the subject's rather odd novels (and many many many crosslinks); it may not have been a promotional campaign, but it certainly got greeted as one! All the pages were deleted, except this one; it was discussed separately and kept after a rather muddled debate.

It was generally accepted (see relevant AFD) that the subject's writing is not particularly notable, and about the only grounds it seemed that we had left for keeping an article on him were... well, that we were annoyed with him, and wanted to put that on the record with an article like this. The article then had even that removed, leaving it as just a bare listing of some work he's done and a mention of the books.

I understand the sentiment for keeping it the first time, I confess, but, well, it's not what we're here for. The claimed notability rests on his works, which we seem to have agreed don't come anywhere near the threshold at which we'd like to write an article; we're generally agreed that keeping articles on a person just to hang negative insinuations on them isn't really on; and once we've removed both those aspects, the article is really of no interest or use to anyone; it's a compromise which doesn't satisfy either party.

We can't reasonably just write about the allegations; we can't reasonably just write about the unsubstantiated promo copy; we have a piece of edit-warred rubbish if we have both; and we can't make an article without either. It's been stagnant for a year without any activity, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to have a magic solution to the issue. It seems to me that the best solution is just to quietly take the article out and dump it. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Away with it. I don't see notability or any real reason to keep it. - Philippe 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the discussion of the article - "You know, something just occurred to me... If we cannot accept/prove that "William R. Stanek" and "Robert Stanek" are the same person... then what the hell are the tech books by "William R. Stanek" doing under an entry for "Robert Stanek"? This entry was originally created by a Stankite as a puff piece promoting the FANTASY books and their author... Therefore, these tech books and their author have no place in this article... because we cannot show they are the same person without undertaking "original research"... ;)" Time to put this thing out of its (and our...) misery. Synthfilker (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was It's been speedied by User:Athaenara as a copyvio. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tits on a bull

WP:DICDEF Madcoverboy (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic.PB666 ^yap 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary not here. Unless there's a Triple Crown winner with the same name, then it's a keeper. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not belong on Wikipedia tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never even heard of this phrase and it's kind of disgusting. No information to substantially back it up! --Vhoscythe^chatter 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic, lacks sourcing, fails notability, and doesn't even tell what the expression means. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:37:03 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - I'm not sure this belongs in urban dictionary either --T-rex 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy: Entire text is copied from Urban Dictionary [6]. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly a common enough phrase (Yamakiri, I would have thought it would be obvious from what's on the page what it means - something which exists but is useless) - and not a neologism either. And it has an impressive 250,000+ ghits. [7]. But it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and, as DCE points out, it's speediable. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just tagged for speedy as a copyvio. I also noticed that the article was created by User:Titsonabull. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Platypusmag

Non-notable skateboarding magazine per WP:WEB and otherwise Madcoverboy (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant seem to make this notable ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. --Vhoscythe^chatter 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, local church with no indication of notability, also g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Baptist Church

Non notable church, smells like a copyvio too. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename, there must be 100s of community baptist churches in the south, the name should be Community Baptist Church (Town, Village, or County). Even so probably not notable.PB666 ^yap 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C.

NN law firm. Advertorial from user:Gjnstl. WP:COI, WP:CORP. -- Y not be working? 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Needs some work, but I think they're notable: prominence in their area.DGG (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good prose, but it sounds like it was written by a professional PR person. It would be a great write-up for the firm's website or for a St. Louis legal wiki, but they fail WP:CORP. y'american (wtf?) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Though my vote may count for nil...) I realize that because my username User:Gjnstl is highly analogous to the subject matter of the article, one may come to believe it to be automatically advertorial. However, I took great care to keep the article neutral in tone and content (and I don't work in PR). The article sticks to the facts only. Numerous third party neutral sources show notability of the firm and certain members. If it were truly advertorial, the WP article would look much more like the main page of the firm site than how it is currently written. Gjnstl (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed the speedy deletion tag in the first place. This article is written in a neutral tone, not as an advertisement. The article asserts significance, and the sources seem strong. --cremepuff222 (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Gandy

Not notable--"films" are video posts on YouTube.com. Eustress (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol Exotic

The article provides no Reliable Sources, google search scores 225ish hits, there's no mention of news coverage - clearly non-notable. -Toon⁰⁵ 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At this moment "Petrol Exotic" has 44 g-hits. I looked through most of them and could not find any reliable or third-party.--Samuel Tan (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability, sources are all own site, blogs, YouTube. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (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 delete. Based on the below discussion, the science park is being given as the reason for notability. If this is the case, then the science park should have an article. No indication of how the school is notable. Neıl 龱 10:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Parish Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school. Nothing shown that asserts this school's notability, and there appears to be little difference between this and thousands of other such schools. Contested multiple PRODs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The school's science park is clearly notable based on the media coverage it has received. --Eastmain (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IMO, the science park (despite the refs) doesn't raise this school to the level of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable science park backed up by reliable references thus meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few news stories about one aspect of the school doesn't seem enough to establish notability - basing an article around this would mean that it falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:N and is WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're after a philosophical discussion try my talk page.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:V and WP:N. Needs expansion however. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability is insufficient--local interest only-- & I doubt the article could really be expanded. DGG (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The picture of the science park notes that it is a community science park. It may be located on the grounds, but this seems to disqualify the school as having ownership, and thus cannot be used to establish the notability of the school. Lacking further claims, I am seeing this article as not asserting notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the first parks in the country of its type. It can be expanded much more than it currently is contrary to what some might think. CelesJalee (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the park is actually notable, then let it, not the school, have its own article. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the articles that were accessible noted that the parent organization had some involvement in raising money. I checked the school and district website and can find no mention of this park being owned or operated by the school or district. I think to establish notability, it will take more than proving the park exists; there should be evidence that the school/district owns the park. Otherwise, it seems to me this is notability by geographic association. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you realize that the school owning the park or not has absolutely nothing to do with the notability factor? This mention in the Boston Globe article, "the vision of a group of parents and staff at the West Parish elementary school who are working to make an interactive "science park" a reality" does however bestow notability on the subject (which is the school NAMED in the story by the way) via a WP:RS no less. It never fails to amaze me how many people never seem to get a grasp of WP:N. The article proves the school exists so there's a pass for WP:V and that's policy by the way.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I will overlook your insult, as I do understand WP:N, and gently remind you to keep your argument focused on the subject, not other editors. Let me put it this way: if some parents at my Chicago high school decided to get together and raise money for a community botanic garden, and a news article mentioned they were all associated by being parents of students in high school "X", does this give notability to school "X"? No one here is questioning WP:V. It is [[WP:N] that is at the heart of this debate. Just because a school is named in a WP:RS does not establish WP:N. If that were the case, any 6 year old who makes the honor roll in their small town would meet WP:N. Any school would eventually meet WP:N, since schools are invariably mentioned by name in an article. That does not establish WP:N either. The only aspect of notability that has been argued for in this AfD is that the school has the science park. I am asking that evidence be presented that the school or the district owns the park. This evidence has not been presented. I have looked for it myself, and have found nothing. Buildings generally do not meet WP:N simply because they are next to something notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court

Judging by the username, this article was written by the author and needs a lot of cleanup if it stays. Google throws up nothing except a few Wikipedia mirrors and one or two other sites - nothing that actually says anything about the book. Some of the author's claims are rather dubious. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable and likely selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:38:15 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Checked the copyright records. The article is written by the author (which does not appear to be disclosed in the article--he refers to himself as "the author" without disclosing his name). Also he mentions some "litigation", unsourced, which appears to be designed to drum up some controversy. No Supreme Court mention on Oyez, no mention on Google--I would think there would be some coverage somewhere. The Sydney article doesn't appear in their archives, and the Melbourne title is too generic to search--but no article in 10 years has the keyword "Tejuana". I would thus consider this an advertisement. Eauhomme (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and lack of WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those Australian newspaper references look very dubious - the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't have a 'section A' and the titles it's claimed that the stories were printed under are awful grammatically. Moreover, the SMH and Age are arguably Australia's leading newspapers, and they don't print book reviews or articles on unknown authors on page 7! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Bilge. A steaming pile of Dingo's kidneys. Etc. Nick mallory (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatant advertising with a side of hoax references. The only reason I'm not speedying is because there's an AfD underway. — Gwalla | Talk 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Obviously made up one day, feigned sources, no proof it even exists. Hoax. So tagged. (Gwalla, you can speedy something that's up for AfD if the speedy fits.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Rossum

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharee Miller; taken with the currently discussed crime notability policy, this is a non-notable criminal. Taken with common sense, this crime however disturbing is not particularly noteworthy. Ironho lds 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, someone should check the facts in the wrongful death award, if true I think the article is notable.If false, it should be deleted.PB666 ^yap 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a check; what makes it notable? It isn't a covertly worded criticism or whatnot, i'm just interested. Ironholds 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The size of the award - it was record breaking, I think 100 million US. Verified the news source, also the reference should have been 'paraphrased' in the article for:

The de Villers contended in their suit that Rossum and her employer, the county of San Diego, shared the blame for Gregory de Villers' death on Nov. 6, 2000............In the end, the jury determined that Rossum was 75 percent responsible for de Villers' death and the county was 25 percent responsible. The county, which said it probably will appeal, was ordered to pay $1.5 million.^{Rossum unlikely to turn lurid crime tale into riches By Dana Littlefield Union-Tribune, San Diego}

There is more here than what you see in the article, so I think it would expand at some point.PB666 ^yap 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , as the references provided in Kristin_Rossum#References indicate sufficient coverage of Kristin Rossum in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Not only from the debate below but from the previous full-length AfD debates there is no consensus that the material should be deleted. Merge discussions should take place on the articles talk page as for all other articles. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Upson

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural renomination. I had closed a previous debate (Afd2) as a merge, but was then approached by an editor regarding the expansion of this article. Details of that discussion are here. Enough time has now been given for the article to be expanded/referenced and a decision on this version should be made by the community. Please note the existence of a 3rd nomination which was closed early as out of process. Shereth 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I saw no reason for this article to exist last time and I see no reason for it to exist now. failed election candidate who was convicted of a minor crime - I just don't see the sort of notability that we are looking for. A line on the election article - yes, a seperate article - no. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see User:Abd/Donna Upson for a partial compilation of sources on Upson, there are many, many newspapers and other reliable sources referring to her arrest in Canada and her candidacy, the events during the candidacy, and the outcome, plus there is a mention of her case in 2007, again in a Canadian newspaper. It is clear that these events, both in 2000 or 2001, I forget, and in 2003, made a big splash in Canada that is still remembered. The merge decision wasn't correct because there are plenty of RS for events relating to Upson that is utterly inappropriate for the election article, specifically what happened with the early charges, the later assault and failure to appear charges, all of it before the election. I also consider the time given too short. I am not the Lone Ranger.--Abd (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed municipal candidate (a fringe one at that) with a couple of news brief related to her arrest on hate crimes and subsequent release. Having followed Canadian news for years, I never heard of her until I stumbled upon the 2nd nomination for deletion of this article. I wouldn't call her case a "big splash" in any way. She may have had her 15 minutes of local fame in Ottawa and Halifax, but I cannot see any evidence of long term notability, and nothing that amounts to its own Wikipedia article. She's at most one line in the 2003 Ottawa election article.--Boffob (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you could read the delete votes, the previous nominations (especially the second one) and the discussion provided in this nomination before saying "no reason to delete is provided".--Boffob (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a nominator can't be bothered to articulate some reason to delete the article then the nomination should be dismissed immediately. Starting a guessing game or fishing expedition is abuse of process. The topic clearly has some merit or it wouldn't have survived 3 previous nominations. AFD is not if at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it seems that the nominator doesn't actually want to delete the article - he wants to unmerge it. This discussion has no business here - it should be conducted on the talk page(s) for the article(s) in question. AFD is for proposals to delete articles, not for other matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have been bothered to read what I said more thoroughly, you'd know that the nominator doesn't want anything except to generate more discussion on this matter as per an agreement with a certain editor who wanted to un-merge the material. Shereth 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also - contrary to your statement this article has not "survived" 3 previous nominations. One was speedily closed without regards to the article itself, and one was closed as a merge, not keep. For you to characterize this as an attempt to game the system by repeatedly renominating the article demonstrates that you really aren't up to speed with what is going on here. I'd suggest you read the previous discussions prior to further attempting to draw conclusions as to the intentions of the nominator or other involved editors. Shereth 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not start a process of this sort just to "generate more discussion" - that's what talk pages are for. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first AfD for this article was in 2005, and the result was a clear Keep, 8 Keep /2 Delete+nom /2 abstain. One of the Delete voters commented about his Google search with few hits. What I found last month is that the bulk of RS for Upson is in newspaper archives that are not Googleable. I was able to find these where the content could be purchased. I didn't pay for content, so I only saw headlines and lead sentences, but there is plenty of source. When someone can get access to the articles, there is ample detail that hasn't been shown in the article, I'm sure. There are a couple of holes, mysteries, that would doubtless be explained in the full sources. For example, her arrest prior to the Ottawa election was quite likely from fallout from the 2000-2001 events. She was convicted of the original crimes and sentenced to, as I recall, two years. But after a year, an appeals court threw out some of the charges against her and her time was reduced and she was released. However, she was promptly rearrested on two assault charges from incidents while she was incarcerated, plus a failure to appear charge. She was released and I speculate that she never returned for trial, which then explains what she was arrested for in 2003 ("assault and failure to appear"). But I have found no source explicitly connecting the dots. It is probably in the detail I have been unable to see. I had been thinking of asking for assistance from Canadian editors who might have library access to the newspapers.

In the second AfD the nomination reason, by GreenJoe, was "Fails WP:BIO. She's a failed mayoral candidate. Not at all notable." Failed mayoral candidates don't usually have anything remotely like the national coverage she received, and it was not the first time she was covered. WP:POLITICIAN would indicate she's notable, because of that wide notice. The !vote was 4 for Merge, 9 Keep, and 9 Delete + nom. The closing admin, Shereth, decided on Merge as a compromise, but nobody had consulted the editors of the Ottawa election article! I'd say that most of the detail from the Upson article, reliably sourced, has no place in the Ottawa election article, specifically nearly all the information about the events of 2000-2001, which did receive national attention. After the AfD closed, the closing administrator agreed to reverse the Merge decision and allowed the article to be unblanked and developed, it now has far more source than it did previously, and there is plenty that hasn't been used yet.

The third AfD, a rapid renom (1 day after closure) by GreenJoe, was speedy closed by Shereth as premature. It had attracted 3 Keeps and one Merge/Conditional Keep before being closed, and one Keep added after. The nominator attempted to revert the closure, but then retired from Wikipedia with a comment showing that a strong issue for him was the "woman."[8], "At least I can say with a clear conscience that I don't support this woman." I mention this because we should be careful with AfDs based on a dislike of what the subject of the article stands for or believes, and the 2nd and 3rd AfDs seem to have proceeded from this.

So now we have the 4th AfD, which appears to be Shereth keeping his promise to renominate. Admirable, though I think a bit premature. But the information in the article is reliably sourced, and the fact that an abundance of reliable source exists indicates that she was notable at the time, and notability does not expire.--Abd (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame and notability are two separate things. She was mildly (in)famous for a little while, but never notable in the encyclopedic sense. Read the entirety of WP:NOTE instead of taking the "Notability doesn't expire" part out of context. Notability doesn't expired "if a subject has met the general notability guideline". She doesn't meet the guideline. She was a small, local news event once for hate crimes, and once for a fringe candidacy. As a "politician" (in quote because anyone with a couple hundred bucks can be a mayoral candidate, she never actually actively did any politics), she fails to meet the guidelines. As a criminal, she fails to meet the guidelines. All you have is some coverage by reliable sources, mostly local media. But this falls under WP:BIO1E: "Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive..." is right there. The message is still cover the event, not the person. We have an article on the 2003 Ottawa elections. The only reason she was in the news at the time, as a fringe candidate, is because of her prior conviction. Altogether, it's still WP:BIO1E, so it doesn't amount to something worthy of its own article. --Boffob (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Boffob has written is substantially false. It was not "a small, local news event." It was national news in Canada. Not just once. Yes, with a couple of hundred bucks you can be a candidate. Does this give you substantial CBC coverage? She got it. Are there six letters to the editor published in a major newspaper about the candidacy? There were. (I haven't seen the letters, but a lot of people were outraged.) Look at the sources page I mentioned above, User:Abd/Donna Upson (which, by the way, does not start with RS, it was compiled as I searched, and starts with a blog, but finds RS). "mostly local media" is major Canadian mainstream newspapers and CBC. She had CBC coverage in 2000 and in 2003. There are over thirty newspaper articles, I think, from major newspapers. Not all of them are independent, i.e., the same news source was sometimes used in various newspapers, and I haven't done a detailed analysis of how many truly independent articles there are, and I can't really tell from the summaries I have, since each newspaper edited the news differently, presenting different leads. By the way, I reread WP:NOTE following Boffob's suggestion, and it convinced me of her notability. I don't know where he gets the idea that this was a "small, local news event." Maybe it deserved to be, but it wasn't. (And there is more than one event here, there are several in 2000-2001 and several in 2003. There is also a mention of her in 2006, just an example (apparently considered notable by a newspaper) of a rare charge: hate crime. See the Sources page I reference.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS. She made the news twice, mostly in briefs. Would her arrest make her worthy of her own wiki article? No, it's not a historically notable event (people getting arrested make it to the news, even national news, all the time). Would her failed mayoral candidacy make her worthy of her own article? Again, no, she was a fringe candidate. We need "historical notability". She has none. She was in the news essentially twice: once for a small crime, and once a few votes because the media created attention to her candidacy (controversy sells papers). The only notable event she was a part of was the 2003 Ottawa election, which makes her case fall under WP:BIO1E. As an example, Julie Couillard is undoubtedly much more notable than Donna Upson (the case made international news), yet see where the link redirects.--Boffob (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at each of these claims: "made the news twice, mostly in briefs." What does "twice" mean? There are reports from when she was charged with the hate crime. There are reports from when she was convicted. There are reports from when she appealed. There are reports from when she was released and rearrested. There are reports from when she filed for candidacy, an event that would ordinarily cause no reports or few reports at all, if she weren't notable. There were six letters to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen (not "minor local news") over her candidacy, speeches given by other candidates referring to her. There were reports when she was again arrested, and there were reports about her vote count, called "startling." Why "startling"? Because it was considered unusual, unexpectedly high. She was actually successful in what she set out to do, which was to display some support in the voting population for her fringe views. So "failed candidacy" would imply that she failed. She didn't. She succeeded, not in becoming the mayor, which wasn't her goal nor the goal of her supporters. It was to gain publicity, and she got it. Lots of it. No. The fact that she ran, alone, would not make her notable. But that she ran accompanied by widespread national notice and that she had been so noticed before does make her notable.

I see that there is actually substantial argument, very recent, that Julie Couillard deserves her own article. I have not investigated it, but I'll say this: if there is source for Ms. Couillard like there is for Donna Upson, this would be correct. The argument made here is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e, "other stuff does not exist." Which is actually quite untrue, I'm sure. We have other entries with less source showing notability. One might note that I have not raised that argument!

WP:NOT#NEWS contains this: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Upson satisfies the requirements of this, clearly. (Besides the fact that there was more than one event, even if we take the criminal case and its fallout, which continued for around three years, is an election a "single event?" actually, there were at least three widely reported events in connection with the election: her candidacy and the response, her arrest before the election, and the election results. Most minor "failed candidacies" would see only coverage in lists, nothing like what Upson received. As to the criminal charge, "hate crime" is actually an unusual charge in Canada, apparently, so unusual that in newspaper report of another hate crime case in 2006, Upson's case was mentioned. This alone shows notability! I.e, a reliable source referred to the case as unusual, worthy of note.

If Boffob is as incautious about his editing of articles as he has been about his comments here, I'm worried! What he calls "a few votes" wasn't, in context. It was "startling." He impeaches reliable source because they, if I translate it, publish what they think will interest readers. I.e., what their readers will consider notable. He's got it backwards! We use newspapers, generally, as reliable source for notability, precisely because this is what they do. They don't publish material that they don't consider notable, and we use their editorial judgement as proof of notability. That is, a single incident becomes notable enough that we might use a single report on it to justify a sentence in an article. And multiple reports, widespread, with even less than exists for Upson, shows sufficient notability for an article. If all of that source relates to what is legitimately a single incident, then the information would still properly be placed in an article on that incident (here, the Ottawa election article). But it doesn't so fit, it is broader than that. Her arrest and conviction in 2001-2002 was independently notable (as shown by the 2006 reference to it as a notable hate crime).

Finally -- yes, I hope it is finally, WP:BIO1E, as I read it and with a reasonable definition of "one event," suggests, not what Boffob claims, but that Upson have her own article. This is really just an expansion on WP:NOT#NEWS, cited as if it were some independent argument. I would guess that Boffob is Canadian (haven't checked beyond a brief look at earliest contributions), and we must realize and factor for the fact that many Canadians reacted with horror to her candidacy and have a strong interest in making it clear that she doesn't represent the Canadian public; this seems to have been the case with the prior nominator, GreenJoe. While some suspected POV of Boffob isn't directly relevant, we should be aware of the possible distortion of arguments that can come from a strong POV. I have utterly no axe to grind here other than an interest in having Wikipedia be complete and balanced, within and satisfying the notability and verifiability policies and guidelines, but, I suppose, once you have researched a subject, looking for reliable sources, there can be some attachment to seeing that research used. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all the news related to her crimes do not make them a notable event. As I said, again, tons of people get arrested, undergo the standard legal procedures and all this gets reported in the news all the time. Altogether, even with "national coverage" (some news brief get widely reported) for Donna Upson, they do not make an "event" worthy of a Wikipedia article. Without her candidacy, you couldn't make an article, there's not doubt about that. After these non-Wiki worthy trials and tribulations, she was a candidate for a municipal election. That election has a Wiki article. All news coverage she received in that time is tied to the election. She ended up sixth (out of how many) with about 1300 votes (0.71%) which one journalist in Halifax called "startling", though it's just really visibility bias. It's still a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E.--Boffob (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is newspaper notice of her hate crime conviction in 2006, not related to the election. Because, apparently, of the rarity of such, it was considered notable. By a newspaper. What standard is Boffob using? Personal opinion? The coverage of Upson is not normal for most criminal acts, nor for "failed candidacies." Now, let me ask, is the opinion of "one journalist" writing in an edited major newspaper, as a bylined article, not an editorial, to be discarded in favor of the opinion of Wikipedia Editor Boffob? There may be much more, I've only cited what was relatively easy (not "easy") to find on-line. This is a newspaper mention of the original event, totally unrelated to the election, as far as I can tell, in 2006. If that is not strong evidence of notability, I'm at a loss. There is more, too, outside of clear reliable source, particularly from Canada, international notice, but I haven't dealt with that, since the Canadian RS is so plentiful. Not one article picked up and repeated, not just one event, period.

This is what I have on that article, an excerpt from the newspaper archive:

Man faces hate crime charge

The Chronicle-Herald - 01-18-2006 - 340 words

Kristen Lipscombe Staff Reporter - [...] said Tuesday that hate crime charges are "not very common at all. In July 2000, Donna Marie Upson, dubbed Baby Hitler by fellow Ku Klux Klan members, was sentenced in Dartmouth provincial court [...]

Note that it was not her opinion. It was the opinion of someone she -- and her editors -- considered notable, I don't know who it was yet. This is one reason why we allow more time for articles to be better sourced! It might actually take months to fill in these details.

--Abd (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to move the rest of these comments to the Donna Upson talk page, for now, shall we?--Boffob (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many more AfDs will there be? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had she just been a candidate for mayor, she's probably not notable. Had she just been a random hate-crime arrestee, she's not notable. It's the combination of the two that make it worth having an article about her—and she certainly deserves a stand-alone article and not merger into the article on the mayoral race. There are ample reliable sources, the article is neutral, and I don't see it as an unreasonable intrusion on her right to future privacy (especially since at least the existence of the news articles can be found with a Google search). (Meta-discussion: I think it was reasonable to have this 4th AfD given the lack of consensus on the 2nd AfD. There has been discussion on the talk page, and I think it was sufficient consideration there before, well, relisting the issue in AfD to see if we have consensus.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottawa municipal election, 2003, as of AfD2. As far as I can tell from the article she didn't gain any notability since AfD2, so I don't see any reason not to stick with that result - it's still just the two events, the crime and her candidacy. The many references all just point to those two events, and their subsequent fallout.
Notable enough to be mentioned in the context of the municipal election, not notable enough for her own article. --Amalthea (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Source found by John254 seems to address any notability concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharee Miller

Taken with the currently discussed crime notability policy, this is a non-notable criminal. Taken with common sense, this crime however disturbing is not particularly noteworthy. Ironho lds 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess you are referring to WP:N/CA? Nk.sheridan Talk 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just another crime. I can't find anything that makes her notable IMO. There are thousands of murders daily around the world. Yes, she made an appeal in 2003, as I stated and linked to at Talk:Sharee Miller. It's delete per WP:BLP1E in my opinion. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this case has been the subject of a mainstream book, "Fatal Error", ISBN 0786015241, as well as other coverage in popular media, as described in Sharee_Miller#In_popular_culture. John254 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John254. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Participation in this debate is low, but the concerns made are reasonable, and I see no need to extend discussion on an unsourced article like this. Recreation is of course possible as more information becomes available as we approach the release date. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Mean Business

Unreleased album, no release date, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakbeard

Per WP:MUSIC: A nice, solid looking article at first, but a read of the contents shows it to be yet another myspace-band. User removed speedy tag without comment;user removed notability and inline-citations tags without comment. Fribbler (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No significant coverage from reliable sources that I can see, their 1st EP, produced by their own record label, has not been released yet.--Beloved Freak 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, written like a promo piece. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. Article is very well written but boils down to saying that they've self-published an album and have played some small venues, plus some trivia. References says they were mentioned in SF Station, but that's just an events calendar site, and a search for the band's name there brought up nothing. BTW, I had to laugh when I read the bit about how "Breakbeard rules!" is their slogan. I mean, "* rules" is just a basic shout of appreciation. It's not exactly noteworthy that somebody would shout it at a concert. — Gwalla | Talk 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very low google hits. Article does not have any authoritative refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web conferencing software

Nominating on behalf of User:GaryECampbell who feels that this article had been created purely to promote another article and should be deleted. I am currently neutral as I'm not completely sure whether or not an article like this belongs in Wikipedia, or whether or not it is notable. As it stands it is unreferenced, and could be original research. Beloved Freak 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to All: I am withdrawing my AfD nomination for this article. - GaryECampbell (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: - To correct my statement below: - There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 spamming to the Microsoft Live Meeting article (and other vendor articles) is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that vendors are editing ratings for their competitors. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is associated to the person that created this article. There is no proof edits led by 206.80.0.98 on July 1 to this article, then followed by the creator of this article the same day to the web conferencing article after both took a two week wiki break are related. And there is no proof posting a 2 week old copy of the entire Web Conferencing article to accomplish a 1 line edit was anything but an error any experienced editor could make. And there is no proof of any conflict of interest. We all know ISP's retain connectivity records that provide identification information. But there is no action or reason I know of at present to dig deeper.

I therefore apologize for the inconvenience and my incorrect statement of conclusions. I apologize for stating such in this limited exposure space. However, gross errors about the market leader WebEx (purchased by Cisco for $3 billion dollars) provided by 206.80.0.98 and the author were highly exposed in the web conferencing article which is the #1 search result returned by Google when searching for web conferencing. Let's hope all such errors and impacts will be forgotten. Frost and Sullivan states that small audience Web conferencing is expected to generate a billion dollars of revenue in 2008, and large audience web conferencing will generate $400 million in revenue in 2008. This space is not a playground, it is serious business. As I had stated below, Wikipedia readers must be provided with accurate reliable information, preferably tested with all claims confirmed. Since I was able to resolve this concern in a different and non-conflicting manner, I withdrew my 2nd AfD nomination. If others wish to replace my 2nd nomination, my suggestion (as BelovedFreak suggests), is to focus on the notability and factual citations (none) of this specific article (rather than the general subject) that will affect a billion+ dollar market. - GaryECampbell (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The article was created by editors of PictureTalk. They are a web conferencing vendor. The same editors created this article. They are creating a comparison article which includes themselves and their competitors. Delete as per WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:COI. I also question the concept of such a complex article by Wikipedians as per WP:NOR (no orginal research), as 60+ vendors are in this space, with 100's of points that need to be considered. This article is linked in Web Conferencing, it should be replaced with references to notable research companies such as Frost and Sullivan, IDC or Wainhouse Research that provide vendor comparisons people can trust - GaryECampbell (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

:*Comment - I have been involved in this marketplace for 8 years and must therefore acknowledge a possible WP:COI. As an expert in this field who has reviewed many such articles by notable trusted research companies, I find the content highly suspect. As such, it caught my attention, hence my nomination to AfD. GaryECampbell (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be better if there isn't another more neutral article on it already, that one be created (or re-created) by people with knowledge on the field and not have WP:COI. From the ground up, it doesn't have to be complete immediately, but it would be good to have. Just out of curiosity, how does "nominating on behalf of" work? Is it really that much more work, or is it tagged, or....?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Reply to Noian - I'm not sure I agree. Such articles (complex technical product comparisons) are a big can of worms. Such articles can be legally contentious. It will be constantly slanted by vendors, their employees, competition, users and paid puppets. Such is the case with this article (created by a vendor rating their own product) which fails under WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:V. GaryECampbell (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Noian I'm not sure how "nominating of behalf" works, I just kind of did it, folowing a discussion about the article at Editor_assistance/Requests (See Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Spamming_Vandalism_Notice). User:GaryECampbell was not comfortable nominating it himself, saying "I'm just too green and wet behind the ears". I removed a speedy deletion tag, not feeling that it qualified, and brought it here for discussion. I don't know if I did the wrong thing by nominating it instead of GaryECampbell, it just seemed the best idea to me.--Beloved Freak 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - It is useful to compare features of software- If that is the case, then pages of all the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons

should be deleted. PS: I created this page am I am not affiliated to any company. I am just a simple user curious about the comparison. Diego Torquemada (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you prove the current things on the page isn't original research? That it is verifiable? Almost all reviews/comparisons are slanted one way or the other, and if you are not (which I don't know if you are or not) a expert on the subject, it wouldn't be close to neutral. I think either the page needs a restart by experts on the subject (note comment earlier) or delete.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no evidence to the effect that a specific article is promoted, nor that the nominated article is created by a specific web conferencing vendor. Gary, perhaps you could share your reasons for believing so? Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Reply to Ryttaren - Thanks for asking. I will post facts this evening (busy weekend). - GaryECampbell (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Slanting can be the smallest things.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparison of web conferencing software and PictureTalk have both been edited by 206.80.0.98 which may have introduced the perceived bias towards PictureTalk in Comparison of web conferencing software, but the articles were created by independent editors, months apart, and were edited by several others since creation. The comment on the first revision of Comparison of web conferencing software is "First page, please help me completing it" and it was created by Diegotorquemada who appears to have a long history editing here. Doesn't that initial revision comment explain why this comparison is mostly empty? Why not add more vendors if that's a problem? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment Does anyone know if there is another version of this page somewhere else?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 partial withdraw and rewrite. — _Maggot^Syn 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headlong (Ings novel)

This appears to be a book review. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. "Strongly recommended by this reviewer. It cries out for a sequel". Definitely WP:OR Ros0709 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article rewrite, Keep. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book was reviewed in New Scientist. Since the book was published back in 1999, there may be other reviews that are not readily accessible on the internet. There is also a review on infinityplus.co.uk and an author interview with information about the book on sfsite.com. I don't know much about science fiction, but those websites look fairly reliable. The article is in bad shape at the moment, but that can be fixed through editing and is not a reason for deletion. I'll see if I can tidy the article up a bit. Bláthnaid 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I posted the AFD this was 100% a book review with almost no encyclopedic content. I see that over the course of the day it has become an actual article so I will close the AFD. I just wanted to make it clear that what is there now is not what I put up for AFD. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Rbanzai :-) However, please note what to do before nominating an AfD. If a book's author has his own article, you can redirect or merge the book to the author's article rather than nominating for deletion. Bláthnaid 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark - I apologize for all the fuss I caused by just describing what I read; I know there is a big scuffle going on in Wikipedia over what should or should not be allowed in, and I probably should have read the rule book before adding anything; but, well, I don't actually takes rules very seriously. Sorry. Incidentally, the revised entry is much better! Thanks to those who fixed it up! PS: As the author of over 300 publications in scientific journals, I can assure you that everything is subject to personal opinion. In Physics we believe in the existence of consistent objective reality, but the route to truth takes many turns. In Literature, well, ... JHBrewer (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the nominator of this AfD removed the notification from the article with the text "Removed my AFD since the article has dramatically changed since it was posted this morning. Good work!" thus appears to have withdrawn the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PictureTalk

AfDs for this article:

Nominating on behalf of User:GaryECampbell. It's currently unsourced and demonstrates no notability. Looking through google hits, I cannot see any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so I don't think it meets notability guidelines and should be deleted. I am willing to change my mind if notability can be demonstrated. Beloved Freak 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "I am willing to change my mind if notability can be demonstrated."- Belovedfreak 76.179.164.79 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any reliable third-party sources to back up notability. The content of the stub is extremely short so it's not obviously an advertisement, but without any sources I don't see why this article should stay. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has existed since February, they've had sufficient time to improve it, the primary editors of the article have spamed all competing vendor and web conferencing articles to link to their company page. Though spamming is an unrelated matter, dubious activity and no effort to improve their article over a 5 month period shows the objective of their article is solely for advertising. Please note I may be in a WP:COI as I am involved in this marketplace. I am also an expert in web conferencing. Had they not spammed every single topic related to web conferencing and other vendor articles (to link to their company article), I would not be involved. GaryECampbell (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was previously voted upon and deleted in 2005 - See 2005 results - GaryECampbell (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't assert or show notability. One source, the company webpage. Created by a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Venant. Faradayplank (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Request speedy under G4. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do these help establish notability? Non-press release articles (I think) and awards it won (all from 2002-2003 though). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Dai 2

Advertising article about NN future event - of which there are literally thousands every summer in the UK alone - that was already speedied once and upon re-creation today has had the speedy tag removed, so wearily bringing it here instead. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Facts, article does not say what town, what nation, it looks like its directed at a regional english speaking audience.PB666 ^yap 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The BBC link here shows this is a one day event. Artene50 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination was withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Preus

No particular notability for this priest. (Also written from a distinctly Lutheran POV, but the man doesn't seem to have gained encyclopedic calibre regardless.) Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now convinced this passes WP:BIO. With apologies, I withdraw the nomination. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant references in reliable sources at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a major clean-up for POV problems, but the subject is clearly notable, as demonstrated by numerous sources provided by Eastmain above. Many of them give in-depth coverage of the subject, such as [15][16][17], for example. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep in the absence of any BLP issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wolk

No particular notability; interestingly, written in the same resume-like tone by the author of Amory Lovins and Michael Potts, which have similar POV issues. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the principal author. In defense of the proposition that Andrew Wolk is a notable academic, I would cite the Wikipedia guideline: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.... 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources."

Wolk, a faculty member at MIT, is regarded by independent sources, such as the Boston Globe and Fast Company Magazine, as a significant expert in his areas of social impact research and social entrepreneurship. To document this fact, I have added links to a recent Globe interview with Wolk on his publication of a book, Business Planning for Social Impact; and to a Fast Company Magazine profile of him.

I would argue that if there are POV issues with this article, the proper course would be to undergo the normal editing process rather than a deletion of the article.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete unless~~ notability can be proven aside from sources already given. The only reliable, third party source given was the Boston Globe interview, but the bulk of the source were the subject's own words, except for one paragraph which concerned solely his work with Root Cause, and it does not state in any form that the man is regarded as a significant expert in his field.--Samuel Tan (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep (see below)--Samuel Tan 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantive external media coverage exists in multiple, reputable online and dead-tree sources. Whether or not he is a "significant expert in his field" is irrelevant - that is neither objectively definable nor a deletion criteria. FCYTravis (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author again: I just added a link to Boston College, Carroll School of Management, Profile of Faculty Member Andrew Wolk, which notes, "Wolk has spoken on social ventures at Harvard University, and The Vermont for Business Responsibility, National Gathering for Social Entrepreneurs, More then Money and United Leaders conferences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhutson64 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: I just added a link to a second Boston Globe article, 'Streetwise MBA' Program Helps Small Business Owners Advance, August 21, 2006, describing the impact of Wolk's work and quoting him on launching a new approach to social entrepreneurship.Jhutson64 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not a notable academic. In contradiction to the page cited above, The Boston College faculty list [18] does not include him, and he is listed on the Boston College Business Institute page as an "affiliate" No publications are listed anywhere--he is apparently a successful consultant. Whether he's successfull enough for notability is another matter. That he has given a number of talks at various meetings is not notability. DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: Wolk's notability as an academic, as an author, and as a social innovator, is established by profiles and interviews of him in credible secondary sources, such as The Boston Globe. His three publications, listed in the Wikipedia entry, include a Root Cause How-to Guide, entitled Business Planning for Enduring Social Impact (which you can find both on the Root Cause site and on Amazon.com); a chapter in the Small Business Administration’s annual report to the president of the United States, titled “Social Entrepreneurship and Government: A New Breed of Entrepreneurs Developing Solutions to Social Problems”; and a white paper copublished with the Aspen Institute, titled Advancing Social Entrepreneurship: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Government Agencies. The fact that he has been a featured speaker at prominent conferences shows that he is well-regarded and notable in his field.Jhutson64 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: I have added links to Wolk's three publications, all available on the Root Cause site. I would note that the publication Business Planning for Social Impact is also offered through Amazon.com. And on the Amazon page, there are excerpts from positive reviews of the book by a fellow faculty member at MIT (where Wolk is a Senior Lecturer) and by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. For example, the book is characterized as "The gold standard in business planning for organizations addressing social problems," by Edward B. Roberts, David Sarnoff Professor, Management of Technology, MIT Sloan School of Management; Founder and Chair, MIT Entrepreneurship. This level of praise seems to cement Wolk's notability as an academic, even apart from the positive review in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.Jhutson64 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: I have added a link to a Chronicle of Philanthropy article quoting Wolk on social entrepreneurship. Since the Chronicle is a paper of record for the philanthropic world, the fact that Wolk is profiled and quoted on his field of social entrepreneurship tends to establish his credibility and notability.Jhutson64 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: Added link to newspaper editorial from The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), quoting "nationally known social entrepreneurship expert Andrew Wolk."Jhutson64 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my stance from weak delete to weak keep, because although many of the claims to notability are very shaky, a few sources do suggest notability and may fulfill the criteria in WP:PROF. Since the issue here is one of notability, I'll state my reason against and for notability.

Reasons against:

Of the three profiles given, one is not substantial, another seems to be down, and the last one is not a secondary source. WP:BIO suggests that insubstantial sources can be used to establish a person's notability only when there are multiple such sources.
Having published works does not make an academic notable; the works should be significant and well-known, and little has been shown for this point, except "positive reviews" of one book on this page of amazon.com. There are a total of four reviews, one by a colleague and three by customers.
I have not been able to find sources that show how well-regarded the subject is from having spoken at prominent conferences. If you have such a source, link it :)

Reasons for:

We have seen two secondary sources that could be used to argue that the subject is a significant expert per WP:PROF. (1) a claim to wide recognition by amazon.com, and (2) a claim to national recognition by 2theadvocate.com. Having two such sources may fulfill the first criteria in WP:BIO: "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.", unless the amazon.com editorials are considered unreliable. (Are they?)--Samuel Tan 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: Repaired broken link to MIT Entrepreneurship Center, Faculty Profile of Andrew Wolk.Jhutson64 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal author: Added link to Boston Business Journal, September 5, 2003. Article quoting Wolk as an "expert" on social innovation.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Light For Eternity

Non-notable single from a band of uncertain notability itself Madcoverboy (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N issues. No coverage of this album from reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Words I Love You

Non-notable single from group of uncertain notability Madcoverboy (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ per WP:Music#Songs. Thin boy 00 @813, i.e. 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Strong delete or merge/redirect as appropriate. Same rationale. --Thin boy 00 @817, i.e. 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doublespeak argument

Apparently original research. Cf. [19] Przepla (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. I've added a CSD G12 tag to this article as a blatant copyvio. Should be gone within an hour or so. Sorry, misread that, the article in question is quoting Wikipedia, not the other way round. Oops. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. John254 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page), by PeterSymonds. Non-admin closure. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Hurricane Magazine (Canadian Magazine)

Recently-established magazine of limited, if any, notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire "article" consists of

Atlantic Hurricane Magazine is a Canadian Magazine based in Markham, Ontario. The magazine was made just in February 2008.

. That, and an infobox that lists the "editor" as Microsoft Word 2007. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, cites no references, and a Google search for "Atlantic Hurricane Magazine" brings up a grand total of eight hits, of which one is the official website (on freewebs) and the rest are ads or directory listings. --Hut 8.5 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm the creator, doesn't the sign say "This article is going under major revamping, please don't put a speedy delete sign." So, however posted the speedy delete sign was not allowed to. The article is going under major revamping as I have new information coming in. Whenaxis (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD nomination is not a speedy deletion. You have five days to improve the article before this discussion is closed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near-unanimity of responses. Sole delete preference was WP:IDONTLIKEIT and did not address notability. Non-admin closure Skomorokh 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Catron

Non-notable per WP:BIO Madcoverboy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable comic publisher, founder of Peanuts publisher Fantagraphics among other things Murray Pishoff (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He is probably notable (the company he founded has published some very important comic books) but there are no sources at all, and the article is barely a proper stub as it is. If kept must be expanded. --Bonadea (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does not influence the notability of the article, but note that the contributors to it (which includes Murray Pishoff) are probable socks of blocked vandal User:Wroth of Groth. If so, there may be a COI issue as well. --Bonadea (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand Needs much expansion, but a totally notable guy in comics publishing. DollyD (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very poor article, of little value. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable founder of a number of notable companies. 210.87.17.39 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great article Veux-tu coucher avec moi (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep it you wikipederasts Condamnez-vous tout pour baiser (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 9th studio album

Non-notable future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree in principle, but if you look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles (specifically number 7), albums are not eligible for speedy. Sigh. TN‑X-Man 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a blanket statement that doesn't apply to all cases. If an album has been announced and there is sourcing, but for whatever reason it has no title as yet, then it satisfies notability. It's no different than the fact we had an article called Bond 22 for a long time before Quantum of Solace was announced as the title. I'm not saying this particular article justifies notability, but it shouldn't be a blanket cause for deletion. 23skidoo (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My apologies, I should have been more specific. I agree that it's not a general policy. I actually checked WP about once a day for weeks before Guitar Hero II came out to see if any new tracks had been announced. I meant that I agreed that one-line articles that only mention that an album is supposed to come out should be speedied. Sorry for the mix-up. TN‑X-Man 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Good to know they're getting back in the circuit, and if they're talking about it on Rockline, then it's probably for sure - but there need to be more sources of info, other than a radio interview session. As such, no prejudice to future recreation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, this article title needs to be disambiguated as it is far too generic. 23skidoo (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More like it needs to be renamed. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC and TPH's Law. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers: Cybertron episodes

Doesn't seem to be notable enough, and very few articles link to it. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Episode lists are pretty standard for the Anime project. This one, admitedly, needs a lot of cleanup (WP:PLOT). 2) "Doesn't seem to be notable enough" sounds a lot like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, episode lists are a standard for any television series and anime series of this length. It needs some serious reformatting and clean up, but to topic as a whole is considered notable on all counts and it is an appropriate spin out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard list for notable television program. It needs cleanup, but AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no valid rationale given. JuJube (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (not elligible for speedy, though possibly it is for WP:SNOW) - Episode lists are standard spinout material for television series articles, with notability tightly associated with its parent article. Send that puppy out for a strong clean-up, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an article about a business that contained no facial showing of notability; Emeraude looked, and found nothing on the web. The article itself was vague, evasive, and buzzwordy, and would have required a total rewrite if kept in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septier Communication Ltd.

Spammy article about what seems to me a non-notable company and, indeed, the article makes no assertion of notability. Google search for "Septier Communication"-wikipedia produces 347 returns, but apart from the company's own website these all appear to be directory entries and the like with no third party etc sources. Article was created September 2007 with no development since, by an editor who has edited only this article, plus adding the company name to Positioning (telecommunications). Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GaryECampbell (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; notability is not asserted.. - Philippe 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britchan

I think this article meets notability as described at WP:WEB. Rumoured Epistle (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. --76.252.188.220 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7(web). So tagged. Does not list any third-party sources nor could I find any in Google news archive search. Presumably the nominator left off the word "don't": I don't think this meets any of the criteria in WP:WEB. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Goossens

Contested PROD. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league/competition yet. The reason given for the contested PROD was that he played in a FIFA Youth World Tournament, however consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability --Jimbo^[online] 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus regarding youth caps. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per accepted notability standards for athletes. Vickser (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Number_57 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in a fully professional league. Football is a professional sport so "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (as was claimed when the prod was removed) doesn't wash here nor is youth international football the highest level, that would be the senior international team. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per author request and has been blanked as a courtesy. Acroterion _(talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Moore

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Sheth

Non-notable, 100 results on Google search. Highest ranking pages seem to be someone's LinkedIn and Facebook profiles (not the subject of this article). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- searching in Google India for one of her recent books brings up fewer than 10 hits. Anybody know offhand what the equivalent to Library Journal is over there?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the author does not show proof of notability. Only 82 g-hits on English Google if you exclude "wikipedia" from the search. I could not find any reliable sources that cover her substantially, and many sources I found seemed to be talking about different Parul Sheths. The award mentioned in the article is also likely to be non-notable since it had only two g-hits, neither of which cover the award substantially.--Samuel Tan 13:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeathBoy

Seemingly non-notable musician - doesn't seem to me to pass any WP:MUSIC criteria. Further explanation on talk page. What i thought was a fairly neutral {{notability}} was quickly removed by creator. Seeking consensus/opinion. tomasz. 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed the {{notability}} tag, as this article has already been debated for notability two years ago. I do not appreciate your insinuation of WP:OWN and a WP:COI on my part as being the article's creator. I just read the stuff, I didn't make this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, i clearly misread the history. i appreciate that you didn't create the article and that therefore the acronyms you infer as applying to you, don't. With regards to removing the tag, i don't think a debate two years ago necessarily casts anything in stone. After all, it could be that that one was wrong. tomasz. 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND, except maybe for having a song in a video game.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets 4, 5 & 10 of WP:BAND. The artist is certainly niche (UK Industrial), but we don't limit notability to artists that we listen to personally. They've released albums on an important label within their genre (Wasp Factory Records). They've played the major UK festival for that genre (Whitby Gothic Weekend) and also internationally in Canada. They've also had their work included on a major game soundtrack (Project Gotham Racing). They're also still active today, should anyone care to pitch "Not doing much recently" as a (bogus) reason for non-notability. Additionally they've also had Lee Chaos as a past member, who's so well-known in the UK Industrial scene that no-one even bothered to create a mere wiki page to describe him (if you cared, you'd already know). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very very very weak keep Meets the spirit of WP:MUSIC by a millimeter in my opinion. This vote should be counted as a delete if no reliable sources appear by the end of the AfD, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confer verifiability, not notability. There's GF discussion as to whether DeathBoy's clearly non-trivial notability is sufficient to count as being encyclopedically notable, but where's the problem in proving this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't enough to simply claim notability, it has to be backed up by reliable sources. If no such sources exist, an encyclopedia article isn't possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but what verification are you short of? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the album pages, Music to Crash Cars To and End of an Error, have in their review lists reviews by some music magazines and individuals that Wikipedia counts as notable. So if we take notable magazines as reliable sources, DeathBoy has had pretty significant media coverage. Xmoogle (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This same issue came up in 2006. Those interested might care to look at the talk page Talk:DeathBoy#2006 notability debate Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rather notable musician in some circles, released by both Wasp Factory Recordings and Line Out Records, used in a video game, talked about by Mick Mercer quite a bit in his online magazines... etc etc etc. Xmoogle (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd have to agree with the comments above. The genre doesn't lend itself to mainstream media coverage, but they've played notable festivals (such as WGW) and seem to be notable within that genre. --Mrph (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable in the genre, out side have made into games and the press. Hopefully this discussion will prompt someone to update the article and add citations to Metal Hammer etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatgonzo (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - while a niche artist that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. Deathboy is quite well known in a lot of bloging circles due to the lead singers LiveJournal, and several mentions of their work by Warren Ellis. Add to that the PGR3 and other game appearances I'd say they meet the notable requirement - probably not by much, but enough that I'm surprised that the article was even nominated DarkCryst (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have third party references for the band and their albums (on that point, I note that each of their albums have their own article, and no one seems to have a problem with that?). Mdwh (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft patent

Given that i quite liked the idea, i actually went through almost a hundred pages of apparent information on this topic, however, except for the mirrors of this very article, a brief mention on a Slashdot comment [20], which i am pretty sure only accidently brought the term patent inbetween the better known term "copyleft license", there is no notable or reliable mention of this anywhere that i can think to look. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just Googled the term and couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:N. I'll change my mind if anyone posts such sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same problem with Google. No evidence that concept is becoming more popular -- if it did anywhere, it would be online to find.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. I, too, think it's a good idea, but you can't use wikipedia to create notability (which is what I'm surmising). I'd change my mind in a heartbeat should somebody uncover some hidden trove of off-line, printed sources buttressing notability. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect This is covered in the more general copyleft article, and does not need its own. At best this merits a paragraph in the general copyleft article. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 source provided by Naurmacil isn't enough on its own to show notability. Perhaps when the song comes out notability will be able to be established.Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold My Hand (2008 song)

DELETE - This is a leaked song, we have no idea if it will even be released, whether it will appear on Akons or Jackson's album. It is not 100% proven that those are indeed Jackson's vocals. Not notable enough yet. Nice song though. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs: the subject of the article is not notable because it has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors and has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. This article does not have enough verifiable material to ever grow past a stub. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both arguments above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and possible astroturfing WP:ADVERT. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Akon, the fact that MTV have reported on the leak makes it worthy of mention, although for sure it should not be a stand-alone article. --Stormie (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The song must be true and not false because on the youtube website it clearly states the video has been taken down do to an issue with copyright of Sony/ATV and which akons publishing's are licensed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymike07 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG - You added that to the article but you didn't provide a source to back up that claim so I removed it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Billboard Magazine just wrote an article[21] about the song. This 1. Confirms the song to be very true, and will be released for the next Akon album, 2. Gives the song notability, having been covered by one of the top music magazines. Suggest above comments be ignored as their concerns are addressed with this new article. Also suggest Realist2 to be patient and wait for one or two days before nomination of deletion next time, as it usually takes a few days for the full facts to be known as in this case. Naurmacil (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that just being a Webby "honoree" (not a winner, as one contributor seems to assume) doesn't quite cut it. Sandstein 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan's Couch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dylan's Couch

Delete nn podcast, already speedied many times Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the speedy because there was a clear assertion of notability, his show won "Official Honoree" in both the viral and comedy: long form or series Categories at the 12th Annual Webby Awards[1]. It's verifiable in a number of sources. It was speedied four times in three days, almost eighteen months ago and before he won the Webby. More info on the win. Doesn't mean it has to be automatically speedied now. The creator requested and was granted unprotection. Whether it's a keep or not, I'm not sure. I'm still looking into it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify, winning an actual Webby and being an "Official Honoree" of their organization are very different. In their words: "Of the more than 8000 entries submitted to the 12th Annual Webby Awards, fewer than 15% were distinguished as an Official Honoree." So a reasonable estimate would be 1000 sites a year getting the tag; so, my good faith question is whether standing practice allows any recognition by the Webby Awards folks clears the "award" bullet of WP:WEB? I can see both sides of that one, and candidly I don't know the policy in that level of detail. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The website (for the Webby awards) shows Dylan's Couch was one of twelve honorees in Comedy: Long form or Series and one of eight in the Viral category. Dylan's Couch is listed along with the Onion News Network and Clark and Michael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergeek14 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I don't really know the difference. I still think it was enough to evade a speedy. I just asked the creator if he's aware of any RS coverage with which to expand the article. I know press releases aren't valid RSes but this one has attributed quotes as to the reasons behind its selection so I'm hoping to find something. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good luck - I couldn't find any RSes on a cursory check, but I'm certainly rooting for you (or someone) to dig some up. Townlake (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Won't be me, unfortunately, I'm headed offline and out of town for the balance of this AfD so I won't be able to work on the article. Hope that someone will find them if they exist. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Admittedly, this has yet to pass WP:RS. But the Webby Awards carry a lot of clout and being acknowledged by their judges (even as an "honoree") gives this podcast more cred than it might otherwise deserve. It's a very, very close call, but I would rather give young Dylan a break. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With the webby honorable mention, that might cross the line. Not sure, but good enough for me. Good luck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an "Official Honoree" to an Award, even an award that has some notable attention, doesn't immediately make the subject of the reward Notable. Even if it did, a Webby Award, is hardly a well known award in itself and definetly doesn't have even the basic coverage to promote Award winners into Notability. Note that the Webby Awards promote non-notable nominations, and even there most well known entries are only well known in terms a segment of the Web, which, however much we as members of it would love to believe is massive, doesn't immediately promote it's locally recognised figures to immediate real notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry to contradict the previous commentator, but the Webby Awards are extremely notable: [22] and [23]. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not contradicting me, so don't worry about it. Infact i believe i even said that this article was not notable despite the Notability of the Webby Awards. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lest we get distracted, this site did not win a Webby Award. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could use some more RS, but it is verified that this won a Webby, a very important feat. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see above. This site did NOT win a WEBBY award. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, how is that an "important feat"? It's neither important, nor a feat, so i fail to see how combining the words creates a fact. Secondly, it has not won a Webby. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, the site was an "honoree" and not a "winner." Which, quite frankly, is still no mean feat -- particularly for a small-scale operation like Dylan's Couch. The Webbys get a ton of entries for award consideration (and a lot of these entries come with a heavy marketing push, not unlike the Oscars or other awards). The fact this young man's independently-produced offering rose to the near-top is something that I find very impressive. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I despair of the extent of policy creep that is evident here. The requirements for notability are clear. You either have to win an award, or be nominated and not win several times. This quite simply doesn't meet the requirements Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable sources discuss Dylan's Couch (unless someone found some?), and zero bullets of WP:WEB are satisfied as an alternative. "Official Honoree" is a type of recognition that young Dylan should be proud of, but it simply isn't a well-known award, and the fundamental criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia aren't otherwise satisfied. Townlake (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in notability and reliable sources. Captain panda 13:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Country

Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Williams is notable, this collection is not. The same user created these, and they all relate to New Directions, a publishing company. I think they are articles masquerading as ads. AW (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same user created them for the same reason:

Delete all. The plays are notable, the collections thereof not, unless proven that the collection was culturally significant for some reason.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I've no objection to a merge to a "lesser-know works of TW" or some such. I only searched for the first one posted (easiest to search) and found a lot.

http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=145&section=notes
http://www.eforcity.com/032031270695.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=8jVaAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Dragon+Country%22&dq=%22Dragon+Country%22&lr=&ei=215uSJCeIafqswOypIWUDw&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=nV5uSKr6O5LAsQPKw-21Bg&q=%22Dragon+Country%22+Tennesse+Williams&btnG=Search+Books
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?lr=&ei=nV5uSKr6O5LAsQPKw-21Bg&q=%22Dragon%20Country%22%20Tennesse%20Williams&sa=N&tab=ps

For the record, the author of this is generally viewed as one of the greatest playwrights every produced by the USA. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Williams is highly notable, and if there's a play by that title, it would be notable as well. However, this article is about a particular edition of his collected plays, which is why I !voted to delete all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that collection is cited in scads of books and papers, making it notable IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not though, those links you provided mention the play "Dragon Country," not this anthology, "Dragon Country: a book of one act plays." And anyway, some random bibliographical mentions aren't enough. --AW (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no one-act play by that name. See One act plays by Tennessee Williams. Two of the plays from the collection have been paired and produced as a DVD with the name "Dragon Country". [24], and that recording has 16,000 Ghits [25]. At the least the movie is notable, but I'd say the collection is too. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the anthologies They're nothing more than a list of what plays are in them; Williams is notable enough for there to be a list, but it shouldn't be spread out over multiple articles. DGG (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. There was a production of the whole set of them (available on VHS), and lots of references. But I agree that merging the anthologies into one article is okay for now given how short the articles are presently. But it would be easy to write entire articles about most of his plays. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to indicate that this book is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with those listed above? Hobit (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a bibliographical list, per DGG. Sandstein 07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR essay. Sandstein 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories

Delete as unnecessary WP:FORK from Category (Kant) Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information presented goes well beyond what's contained in Category (Kant), and could not be merged into it without either undue weight issues or loss of information. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because if we had articles on every philosopher's criticism of every other philosopher, Wikipedia would just become a loose mishmash. Should we have separate articles on Hegel's criticism of Kant, Marx's criticism of Hegel, Marx's criticism of Feuerbach, Feuerbach's criticism of Hegel, Marcuse's criticism of Sartre, Adorno's criticims of Husserl, Husserl's criticism of psychologism, Freud's criticism of prior dream theories, Jung's criticism of Freud? This would be crazy. And it would be in contradiction to the nature of an encyclopedia, at least not a general encyclopedia, although a case might be made for it in a highly specialized philosophy encyclopedia. For me the issue isn't about this article in particular, but about the general issue: we need a policy and set of criteria on this with regard to the Wikipedia philosophy domain, and perhaps also social thought. It seems to me that the general policy should be:1) the essence of anything that is an important criticism in the history of thought of one thinker by another should be included in capsule form, i.e. in at most one paragraph, under the article of the thinker being criticized, if it shaped subsequent thought; 2) it should also be included in capsule form in the article about the thinker doing the criticizing if that criticism was important in the development of that thinker's own thought, as was the case with Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant, Marx's of Hegel, Jung's of Freud, and so on; 3) anything over and above that should belong in references or links to specialized scholarly literature on that specialized topic. That's why there is scholarly literature and libraries. Wikipedia can't encompass the totality of scholarly literature and libraries, it's just an encyclopedia. Part of the point of an encyclopedia is to give the reader a general short introduction to a subject and encourage them to follow up any more specialized interest through appropriate references. That's the way all good encyclopedias operate. Any editor who is so impassioned about one philosopher's criticism of another should be submitting a paper about it to a philosophy journal -- Wikipedia can't be a cheap, easy alternative to the labor of submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. By the way, I happen to think that the same goes for the proliferation on Wikipedia of individual articles about all of the individual works by individual philosophers. For any major thinker, there are only a few works that deserve specialized articles in a general encyclopedia. For example, in the case of Kant, it makes sense for the three Critiques and a few other works; but it doesn't make sense for every individual thing Kant wrote, especially in his pre-critical period. Even philosophy encyclopedias don't have such things. Again, that's where one goes to a library to peruse scholarly literature about Kant. Same for other thinkers. I have several books on Kant which devote short sections to some of Kant's pre-critical writings, and that's appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a scholarly study of Kant or of any other thinker. And, by the way, something similar is happening in some Wikipedia philosophy articles with regard to references, i.e. people are just inserting books that they happen to like or have read or been influenced by, and we're ending up with unwieldy bibliographies that would be useless to a general reader, because he or she wouldn't even know how to choose among all of these references. An encyclopedia bibliography should be a short list of major classic and recent works that a reader could go to to learn more and to find out about more specialized literature if they're interested. I just did a quick scan, and at this moment there are 66 books listed in the Kant reference section. Because Kant is one of the major philosophers, it is understandable that there should be a substantial number of references. But I doubt if more than two dozen are appropriate in a general encyclopedia article. So I'm in favor of deleting this article in the context of the need for a Wikipedia policy or norm about all such articles. Jjshapiro (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article would appear to run afoul of WP:SYN (maybe). (Is Jjshapiro's rationale longer than the original article? :-) )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an encyclopedia article but an essay. As it stands now it is entirely original research and contrary to the guidance at WP:OR. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eh, it appears to be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, OR essay. Apropos of nothing, however, I strongly disagree with Jjshapiro's notion that appropriately sourced and well-written articles on philosophers' opinions of other philosophers are undesirable in a general encyclopedia of the type Wikipedia aspires to be. Ford MF (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic topic. Philosophy is huge and through the years wikipedia's articles can and will grow. The article looks legit. It's not a hoax, right? Schopenhauer really did criticize Kant's categories? As long as that's not in dispute, good faith makes me say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All material has been merged. (Note: if and when there is enough to split out, should be named Stone Gods discography.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography Stone Gods

Deeply unnecessary discography article for a band who've just released (er... well... nearly anyway...) their debut album. Even if they had released it, one album nowhere near justifies a discography in my view. tomasz. 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. One album, and one EP is not enough for an article --T-rex 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Stone Gods. The band is plenty notable but there isn't enough material for a seperate discography yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeh, sorry, forgot to point out in my original nom that i redirected it to Stone Gods a couple of times but that the creator kept undoing this. Yours would also be my preferred course of action. tomasz. 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Andrew Lenahan. Not enough material for separate discography. Silverfish (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stone Gods, not enough content. Seems that the title would be an unlikely search term, but according to W guice, the creator of this article is prone to recreation and this title was chosen to circumvent a possible salting on "Stone Gods discography", so salt this one as well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, i fear i was unclear before: the user was simply reverting rather than recreating a deleted article. It occurred to me that if it stayed it should be moved to Stone Gods discography but i thought it would be appropriate just to use redirects. Cheers, tomasz. 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll merge it with the Stone Gods article as requested. The reason I restored it is because there was no information anymore about their discography because of the redirection . Sorry for any problems I may have caused by doing this. Mercury87 — Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn on confirmation of Emmy find. Sorry I've been offline or would have done so sooner. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Moormann Scharper

Ignoring the apparent COI from the article's creator, there's scant evidence Scharper is notable. The Emmy would make her notable but with or without the middle name, I can't verify it from reliable sources. Can't verify any of the claims, the Bellarmine Players claim exists on wiki and bizarrely in a craigslist ad. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being able to verify Emmy (Emmy website search engine is blocked from linking here).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Keep per finding RS ref to Emmy win--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending further research. Had a bit of trouble searching for emmy too, and at first thought it was a hoax, but there's this - [26] backing up notability claims. Note the one "n" spelling Moorman there. Looks like her husband was notable too, cf Orbis Books.John Z (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keeper. The NYT obit for her husband is not free, but if you search under "Sarah Scharper" at the NYT archive [27] you get another confirmation of their emmy.John Z (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John Z's find of a ref to Emmy. --Crusio (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since Emmy win has been verified by Jon Z's references. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The dates are a little difficult to believe, unless she has a time machine. Married in 1049, born in 1920, died in 1922, graduated in 1949, and then received an award in 1979? It's easy to guess that the marriage year should actually be 1949, but I have no idea about the death, and in any case reliable sourcing would be a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a real detail man, eh? Isn't it OR to cavil at these dates like that? I thought 1922 could be a typo for 1992 This confirms it. It appears the problem is that she was much better known as Sally Scharper. Many more ghits on "Sally Scharper" with quotes than "Sarah Scharper."John Z (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and keep for the Emmy. I just think a little cleanup and sourcing would be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Eghammar

Not jumped in world cup, Most known for: A second place in swedish junior ski-jumping championchips 2007. AlwaysOnion (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ATHLETE and per failing WP:N.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above 2 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A young swedish skijumper that shorely will jump in world cup soon. But RIGHT NOW this article fails WP:ATHLETE and some other criterias. RapesnakeHURT (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ring of Honor events

AfDs for this article:

This article is not needed per the XFD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ECW events, WP is not a directory or a catalog. These ROH events are non notable, we cant list events that occur on consecutive days, that would be like listing every house show that WWE produces. SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions --SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. A list of these events does not constitute an article. All of the keeps in the last AfD were some variant of WP:ITSUSEFUL --T-rex 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator on the original, and because the last AfD has two legit deletes, two SPA keeps and one keep from Le Grand and so should have been relisted to generate a consensus rather than closed as keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if this were tying together articles on the subject, it would be useful, but very few events are bluelinked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasons in the previous AFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it should have been done the first time around for reasons established by this nom and the previous one. RFerreira (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the AfD of List of ECW events. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per precedent. Nikki311 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Society UK

Contested prod. Article is a promotion for an entity/group and all of the sources listed detail other events/ organizations/ news items, instead of the supporting the notability of the article's subject. TN‑X-Man 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sounds more like an advertisement/promotion for the Tibet Society, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising requests the audience/readership to subscribe or purchase some form of product, there is no such content in this article. I have now edited considerably and wish to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria - please be constructive in your criticism rather than just dismissing the article for deletion. Look at similar entries for NGOs, if this content is 'promotional' shouldn't most entries for organisations of this kind be deleted? Are there concrete guidelines as to what constitutes a promotion as opposed to a descriptive entry of what an organisation does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetsociety (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Most advertising simply raises awareness. When was the last poster for Levi's you saw that noted the price or offered a specific contract for purchase? Specifically on wikipedia, something is considered propotion or advertising if the bulk of the content on the page either points to or praises an organization or person and the only sources are from that organization or person. Even if the tone is neutral, if the only sources are press releases and the like, it is an inappropriate use of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BBC mention is trivial. Notability isn't asserted. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first reaction upon reading the article was "They've (supposedly) been around for 50 years and that's all they've done?!" Googling seems to confirm non-notability. Their two major campaigns as stated in the article, "Support Tibet Not Terror" scores 10 Google hits and "Bring Tibet to the Olympics" scores just 5 hits, and in both cases the bulk of them were their own website, Wikipedia, and their own Facebook. Their own website has no Alexa rank and apparently gets less visitors than my own personal site does. The above coupled with a lack of non-trivial reliable sources leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is simply not a notable group which has caught on in any measurably impactful way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage found in Google News -- most mentions are quoting spokespeople.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirecting per customary practice with nonnotable songs (that may still be search terms). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role Model (song)

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:OR and WP:RS. It never was a single, even though it might have had a music video. As there are no sources, there is really nothing that can be merged into its relative album.
Also see this similar Afd. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:SONG, WP:MUSIC and WP:OR, there are no sources for this song, only videos for the music video, though this song has never been charted or been acclaimed for anything.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, especially previous delete on similar track.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and SRX ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Slim Shady LP. JuJube (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene-seed

Fictional in-universe account of bio-engineering. No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Several Times (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Delete I'll merge this article with the main Space Marines article, as this information does not require a page of its own. AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the nomination, not the nominator. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly states that it is a fictional element, and meets those notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. It doesn't meet the proposed WP:TOYS or WP:FICT guidelines. To which notability guideline are you referring? Protonk (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out of universe notability, no independent sources and fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Space Marine article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not satisfy Wikipedia:FICT#Creating fictional element lists.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources cited are independent of the game publisher. White Dwarf is published entirely by Games Workshop, as are the game manuals. If a reliable independent source covers the subject of this article in non-trivial detail I will reverse my vote. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For fictional pieces of work, it would be unreasonable to demand a independent, verifiable source. Such a demand would put all but the most painfully notable TV shows, literature and other entertainment mediums into jeopardy. Often, self-published sources suffice for articles of this nature. 141.117.181.141 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC) — 141.117.181.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It isn't unreasonable at all. It is, in fact, policy. WP:WAF suggests that the use of primary sources is unavoidable for fiction articles. It most certainly does NOT state that such sources are sufficient or proper for establishing notability. If a secondary source can't be found that covers the subject, it isn't notable. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. No demonstration of notability via reliable independent sources (i.e. independent of Games Workshop). --Craw-daddy | T | 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. See WP:PLOT. No need to transwiki, HammerWiki ([28]) already has an article better than this. Neıl 龱 14:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Void. This AfD was started by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I'll undelete the article as if this AfD never happened. The result of this AfD should not be used to influence a possible new AfD in either direction. Relisting this article can happen accordingly immediately, if anyone feels the need. Fram (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2008 (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 Delete. None of those wanting to keep offered any specific argument why this article is about a notable subject. One adresses the nominator, one claims that it meets some undiclosed criteria for inclusion, one claims that a rewrite would solve the notability problem without adressing how, and the final one uses a different definition of notability plus a personal essay, but no verifiable independent reliable sources have been provided to indicate such notability or importance. Fram (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officio Assassinorum

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to keep. Discuss the nomination, not the nominator. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly states that it is a fictional element, and meets those criteria for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will seem repetitive to anyone reading all these 40k deletion discussions, but I can't find a single guideline or policy that mirrors what you are arguing. The two proposed guidelines for fiction and games (WP:FICT and WP:TOYS) both explicitly state that notability comes from discussion in secondary sourcing and that notability is not inherited from the parent project. WP:GNG states an expectation for secondary sourcing as a requisite for notability as well. If I am missing a specific guideline that says what you are saying, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to demonstrate out of universe notability. Fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good portion of the sourcing deals with the assasins associated with each temple, rather than the temple as a whole. Even if we accept that all sources presented are reliable and independent, the material here might only be sufficient to merit a merge into the imperial army article. However, mentioning a fictional element in a novel is not the same as mentioning it in a secondary source. Plenty of reliable secondary sources exist discussing elements of fiction. Failure to find one might be indicative of something. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Take this and you'll need to take hundreds of similar articles across multiple fandoms. Maybe you should petition the powers that be for a harsher notability policy, including the ability to speedy delete offenders. Otherwise, you'll just end up clogging the system or boxing against a whirlwind. Wikipedia is toothless to prevent the existence of this kind of pointless trivia, and is hopelessly mired in its own soft-touch ideology when a sledgehammer is required. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing compels us to delete every like article. Presumably those of us who vote delete do so on the basis of the article's notability, not its type. Even if we DO vote on type, the sheer volume of articles prevents us from nominating everything. Speedy delete would be unfair to the creators, as the question of notability (except where patently unasserted) is one of degree. AfD provides a good venue for discussion and introduction of new sources. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should endeavor to spare the feelings of the poor article writers who violate the notability guidelines. Articles on Warhammer 40,000 should be limited to one article about the game itself, and maybe one for each of the actual armies thereof. Anything else is pandering to the fanbase, and should be summarily deleted or transwikiped to the Lexicanium. We need more active administration of policy, as well as an avenue for deletions of obvious fancruft that bypasses AfD and ProD. We tried democracy, it failed. It's time to try tyranny. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's one view. There actually is an ongoing discussion (somewhere) to make a CSD category for pages that have no sources. I'm not really fired up either way, so I haven't contributed, but if you are passionate you should weigh in on one side there. And fairness isn't about salving feelings. The tools of speedy deletion are known primarily to those familiar with the bureaucracy, rather than those contributing. Each step the deletion process takes to be removed from the purview of IP and intermittent editors is a step away from broad participation. Those are my feelings. We may not share them. We do, however, share a passion for quality and keeping notable articles. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewriting can save this article, if it only violates the notability guidelines. AlmondManTwo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But unless that rewrite introduces some reliable, independent source asserting notability, policy compels us to to delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. Notability isn't demonstrated by references independent of Games Workshop (and its subsidiaries). Fails WP:WAF and some of the external links could be violating WP:SPAM by linking directly to GW's product pages for the miniatures in question. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death whispered a lullaby

Fails WP:OR, author admits article is personal view (WP:NPOV) and that no credible sources have been approached (WP:V). Booglamay (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC) ~~:Delete Original Research, not a single, this should have been a speedy. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect To Damnation (album). I'll do it, then someone can close this AfD. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - I'm not sure what would have qualified this for a speedy, but a redirect seems the best option. Booglamay (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- no apparent grounds for speedy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as a vaguely plausible alternative name; can't see anything worth merging, frankly, but anyone else is free to do so. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health And Safety Act 1974

AfDs for this article:

Possible repost. Was just G12'ed a few minutes ago as copyvio but seems to have been rewritten. Still not notable, and it has a sig in article space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mayalld (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES IT WAS REMOVED A MINUTE AGO AS I MESSED UP WITH THE ARTICLE AND COPIED IT HOWEVER I SPENT TIME RE-WRITTING IT SO DONT DELETE IT PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamez21 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the point; you don't need to use caps lock. If you can prove its notability, please let me know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I supported deletion, the article creator replaced my user page with a threat - reported to WP:ANI Mayalld (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as to notability (mentioned in the nomination) this is one of the most significant and notable acts relating to the workplace in British history. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here to say the same thing. This is a notable piece of legislation. Clearly sholuld be merged to the correct title. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article. ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the existing article Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. To the article's creator, User:Jamez21: threats and personal attacks like this one[29] are completely unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True but he's been told that on his talk page already. Let's not newbie bite. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamez21 is not a newbie: he has been editing Wikipedia since March 2007. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has less than 200 edits many of which are to his own talk page or the sandbox. Plus he's just a kid. His recent article edits show good faith in that he is attempting to write new article on important topics. Yes his comment wasn't good, but lets see it for what it was - childish footstomping. And he's already been warned about it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT TO... I mean, Redirect to Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 per DuncanHill. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the existing article Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoland Mall

Both of the references are dead, and the external link is a scan of a directory. A search turned up only trivial mentions (i.e. news blurbs about events/sales at the mall). Note also that Brownsville's operational mall (Sunrise Mall) doesn't have a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Commercial cornerstone of a decent-sized city for 3 decades. Based on Google news results, the closing and subsequent sale of the mall was well-covered in the press. Keep in mind that a lot of print news sources in the 70s (likely being the bulk of substantial press coverage) aren't online yet. Google Books shows it was frequently cited in discussions about US/Mexico border economics--for example, that a dip in valuation of the peso hurt the mall's business even though it's located in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna keep it, let's make a page on Sunset Mall too, eh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Starblind said, it HAS received considerable coverage. though part of that is due to becoming part of a large university.--Marhawkman (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership and strategy

Delete nn book published only as a Print-on-Demand title by BookSurge Mayalld (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No showing of notability. This sounds like yet another management fad-wannabe self-help book with a historical hook. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. There is no reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Trail

AfDs for this article:

Re-creation of an article already AfD'd as non-notable and promotional. Speedy declined by an admin who objected to the original AfD decision. I can't see that anything has changed. The trail is a commercial venture. Most of the article is a plug for the company's activities and there are no sources other than three recent newspaper articles about the activities of the company's founders, clearly part of their PR drive. andy (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep. If I may present a few facts in defence of this article:

1. The original AfD was a very, very curious call – the admin in question completely ignored the three-to-one consensus to Keep the article and justified his decision with the strange statement that “A Christian newspaper covering a Christian topic isn't really an objective source.” The admin made an incorrect statement: the media source was not a newspaper. It was the Catholic News Service, an international news organisation whose notability is not questioned by the secular media.

2. The article in question has been edited and rewritten to remove any suggestion of promotional puffery that tainted its original incarnation. I believe it meets WP:N requirements in that regard. I would invite any editor to make additional changes if they feel this aspect of the article requires more polishing.

3. The article’s sources are three international news services: CNN, Associated Press and Catholic News Service. The fourth source is Haaretz, one of Israel’s leading newspapers. I believe this passes WP:RS.

4. The argument to delete the trail because it is a “commercial venture” is silly – any public attraction where admission is charged is a “commercial venture.” Wikipedia does not disqualify articles based on this. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the proposal is not to delete the article because the trail is a commercial venture but because the article is fundamentally spammy. The sources may be leading newspapers but that's not the same as notability - these are travel articles about the company's activities developed from the company's own PR. There are very few ghits that aren't PR-based - after all ~~it was only invented last year~~ only launched this year. If all mention of the company is removed there's only a very short stub. andy (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please see #2 in my initial comments. You are welcome to edit the article further, if you genuinely wish to see it preserved online. As for the press coverage, CNN and Associated Press do not engage in PR puffery. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article is credited to AP. So that's one reference less! andy (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, there are still 3 credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElVacilando (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- More commentz If I may add; as I said down below in my thoughts, I don't think that the Catholic News Source is good enough to base an article's stability on. Sure, it's notable, but again, is it really objective? A Christian source has a significantly higher chance of covering a Christian topic than normal news. My main point is that that fact makes the CNS a much weaker source. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If the coverage by the Associated Press does not fulfill this requirement, then nothing would. Hence, the Jesus Trail is notable. Furthermore, there is no mention of any "company" in the article at all. There are two sentences about who founded the trail and how it is maintained, and these can be removed if necessary (although I don't believe it is necessary), and still leave a substantial article. ElVacilando —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElVacilando (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word is significant coverage. A few newspaper articles, all triggered by a press release, isn't significant. So far almost nobody has walked this route, it's not in any hiking magazines that I can find nor any religious websites. In fact almost nobody knows about it and almost nobody is talking about it. In a couple of years it may be as significant as the pilgrimage to Santiago but not yet, and WP isn't the place to drum up custom. andy (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is me again. Uh, all newspaper feature articles are triggered by a press release. If you are reading an article about a hiking trail, the Jonas Brothers, a new software program, a candidate's appearance at a specific location -- it all originates with a press release. That's PR 101, so I don't see where you are going with that argument. Furthermore, how can you say "nobody knows about it and almost nobody is talking about it"? And how do you know that "nobody has walked this route"? Are you the guy selling tickets? If I may be bold, I would respectfully request that you please withdraw your nomination and work with the article's author to improve the text. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 17 years as a newspaper and TV journalist, including 4 years with the BBC. I used to teach journalism at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. My brother in law writes travel articles for the Sunday Times. So please take it from me that not all features originate with PR material but very many travel features do which, notoriously, compromises their independence.

Your other comments are aggressive and impolite - be civil, please . Try a few minutes on Google and you'll see very little that can't be traced directly back to PR. andy (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you found my comments to be a bit on the hard-sell side. As I am reading your comments, I believe that you are making statements that appear to be incorrect and appear to deviate from WP:NPOV. However, I might suggest that we step back and allow other editors to participate in this discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple formulation of NPOV is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". My statements that almost nobody knows about it, walks it or is talking about it are facts that can be verified through Google and indeed the travel company's own website - the optimum times to walk the route are "October to November & February to mid-May", but promotional activities didn't begin until February and most newspaper coverage was as a result of the AP article in June (see here) which incidentally says the company "hopes to bring thousands of tourists". andy (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most notable subject in the world, but has substantial coverage in three reliable and independent sources. I disagree with the deprecation of sources by mindreaders who assert that the reporters and newspapers were helpless drones who automatically wrote and published the different stories because they received a press release, like they did not receive and toss 100 press releases for each one which leads to a story. They have editorial review and decide which press releases are of sufficient importance to justify the reporter to create a story worthy of column inches. If WP:N needs to be revised to allow Wikipedia editors to read the mind of the reporters and editors and disallow coverage as showing notability when they weere the helpless victims of a press release to initiate the writing of a story, then please do so. These are not mere reprints of a press release, such as might be found in a small town free shopper paper. Edison (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Optimum times" to walk, as I understand the statement, relates to the Middle East weather (the best times to be out on on a trail). Summer in Israel is quite hot, and December and January can be damp. Absent of specific numbers relating to the volume of tourist and athlete traffic on this trail, statements on "nobody" paying any attention appear to be opinions (particularly in view of the media coverage). Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a well known route through Israel. Despite what the wikipedia article says this trail has been in existence for many years now --T-rex 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you are mistaken, or our article is wrong. It says it was founded in 2007 (and IIRC from my research in the last AfD, it was late 2007, so that would me it hasn't been in existence for even a year yet). Just wondering if you had additional information to add to the article, or if your vote was based on false information. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is my understanding that our article is wrong --T-rex 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting. Do give us a reference please. :) andy (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion advocates arguing whether AP or CNN coverage is sufficient for an article of this length undermines their credibility. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an overwhelming amount of notability, but enough, and verifiability is adequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Worried about it becoming a spam-magnet, but it seems notable and verified by reasonably reliable sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, reliable references, what's not to keep? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason it was deleted the first time was because it didn't have enough coverage. As the article's author I believe that the Jesus trail is a legitimate article because the AP has picked it up. It is notable, has reliable sources, and isn't biased. ElVacilando (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you are also one of the founders of the company. Did AP approach you or did you approach them? andy (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No red flags, no reason to delete. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CNN source (which, in my defense, was added after the original AFD had been closed) is notable enough. I still don't think that a Christian news source covering a Christian topic really gives notability, as chances are that the same news source will cover a small-town parade in Oregon. That doesn't mean the parade has significant notability; it just happens to be under the same subject matter. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm? Isn't a claim of insufficiency towards the Catholic News Service as a source on Christian events equivalent to saying that Black Entertainment Television would be insufficient as a source on African-American events? If so, I don't think I'm going too far in saying that such a judgement in the last AfD shows an anti-religious bias in the same way that a rejection of a BET source would show an anti-ethnic bias. Or am I mistaken here? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You're mistaken. BET covering an "African American olympics" in Texas is ok, but again, that would be expected. BET does not cover new brands of tables, it covers things relating to its viewership. CNS does not review videogames, but covers everything Christian. The fact that something Christian has been covered by a Christian news source does not make it notable (the same way that an ethnic rally covered by an ethnic source, or a video game covered by PC Gamer, is not inherently notable). I'm not saying that they're totally discounted as sources, and I'm not saying they're not a good source; I'm just saying that you really can't use them if they're unsupported, as they're not exactly objective are they? Of course, they're supported now so it's fine. But thank you for jumping to the conclusion that I hate religion and black people (I kid, I kid). :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Reply I am guessing that MoP is unfamiliar with the Catholic News Service, since that international news service (in existence since 1920) emphatically does not "cover everything Christian." In any event, WP:RS does not disallow Catholic or other faith-based media as being insignficant or non-notable, so Catholic News Service is considered a reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what this is They're a leading source of news for Catholic goings-on, because they're a Catholic source. Again (I feel like a broken record), they're not objective. Their notability isn't the question here, it's their relation to the subject matter. While WP:RS does say that sources should be related to the subject matter, I don't think it quite means that everything CNS says we put into an article (and no, I'm not a religion basher; if this discussion were on cats and cat magazines I'd say the same thing). Basically, just because the Christian source has published an article on the Christian trail doesn't mean that the trail is otherwise notable. Hope that makes sense... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors who have contributed to this AfD seem to think that coverage in a respectable newspaper is de facto an indicator of notability. You and I (in my case as an experienced and cynical journalist) are in the minority in believing that it's not as simple as that (Max Clifford would probably agree with us, but he's not here right now). Add in a bit of religion and I kinda think you're on a loser with this argument... Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered with this AfD. It depresses me. andy (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure -- CSD G7: author has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Nacevski

Delete nn person with spurious claims to fame Mayalld (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Ts'o

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Theodore Ts'o

Lack of notabillity, not really a "key figure" _→AzaToth 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Project leader on Kerberos. Well known as a Linux kernel hacker, as the article points out the first in North America according to Linus. Received an award for his work from FSF. Interviewed by numerous organisations. What was the standard for this type of article supposed to be again: notable figure within his field of work? Something like that? Are you seriously suggesting this guy doesn't qualify? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Please note the other people who have received the same award from the FSF. Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Alan Cox, Lawrence Lessig, Guido van Rossum, Brian Paul, Miguel de Icaza and Larry Wall. Is someone that the FSF lumps in with that group really lacking in notability? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems to be notable enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alistair. I was convinced of Ts'o's notability beforehand, but now I am really convinced. --Gwern (contribs) 20:09 2 July 2008 (GMT)
Keep per Alistair. He's done a bang up job of showing notability.--Falcorian ^(talk) 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright infringement (G12). Bencherlite ^Talk 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health And Safety Act 1974

The article is copied from http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/haswa.htm, and doesn't add any additional information. StaticGull Talk 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reasons given for keeping are not based in Wikipedia policy. Neıl 龱 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Hands

Individual units in a tabletop game. No reliable independent sources, No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary; does not offer, and a examination of the internet and other databases (such as paid for news services or academic databases - I have access to both via work) search does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. The concept of legions is already covered in sufficent detail in the Space Marines articles and indeed in about five others that need merging to that umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. no out of universe notability --T-rex 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be the only one who feels like saying, "I view self-noms as prime-facie evidence of power hunger" can we not comment on the artilce rather than trying to undermine someone by an apparent "bias" for or against something. BigHairRef | Talk 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fictional element, sufficient notability, blah blah. Furthermore if you're going to nominate a basketload of related articles please read and follow the directions on how to clump them in one AfD. Jclemens (talk)

This, like the other articles noted, fails to meet WP:FICT, WP:GNG, and WP:TOYS. Because it is fiction does not make it inherently notable. The notability guidelines aren't stringent. They do not require that the sisters of battle cure cancer, just that an independent, reliable source wrote something about them. White Dwarf, Fanatic Magazine (this fanatic, as there are lots of mags w/ the same name) and the manuals for play are all printed by the game manufacturer. They are not independent of the article subject. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- True there's no out of universe notability but then the same is true for the vast majority of articles on aspects of all fictional universes on here. As above too.--Him and a dog 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plenty of those articles ARE described by reliable, independent sources. There are hundreds of books published about the simpsons that are independent of Gracie Films, for example. If articles exist which fail to meet the guidelines we are applying to this article then we should improve upon them. If they cannot be improved upon, they should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several general wargame and modelling magazines not owned by GW but who nonetheless cover its products as part of their subject matter.--Him and a dog 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. When one of them covers this subject, it can remain. I know grognard mags exist. That fact doesn't make this article any more notable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into imperial army article. not independently notable. A note to the closing admin: due to some recent deletion discussions, I feel compelled to point out that my !vote to merge should not be lumped in with keep !votes. Rather, if consensus leans toward deleting the article, then treat this as an additional delete comment. As for the source in the article, a read through about what white dwarf is might be instructive. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting nomination of mass deletion - Whatever the outcome of this is, it should apply to every individual chapter article, and they should be nominated as such. Once that has happened, I endorse spreading nominations to include all articles under Category:Warhammer 40,000 that exhibit the same lack of notability. There's hundreds of them but hey, you've the time, right? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. The nominator's reasons are thoroughly valid. Don't forget about what seems to be the small bit of OR in the final section of the article (i.e. what "some fans believe"). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actors

The article is an un-encyclopedic list with no practical chance of improvement. Thanks Shovon (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what's wrong with it. --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that nearly all of the people on this list can be found under "Category:Indian actors", so the information won't necessarily be lost if the list is deleted. Show business in India is an encyclopedic topic, but where the list would be "wrong" under Wikipedia's rules is that it's an "indiscriminate list", meaning that there is almost no information on here to distinguish one entry on the list from the next. You won't know anything about Aamir Khan or Amol Pelakar from this article other than that they are on a list of Indian film actors. Generally, if a list has nothing to make it more useful than an existing category, it's hard to justify its continued existence. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to Mandsford's views, I think that following this line of argument may result into deletion of probably many similar lists. --Bhadani (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a "list" differes from a "category" in that a category groups existing pages. Lists can be created that do not necessarily link to an article. It is very likely that there are Indian actors who would be worthwhile to be listed but not deserving of an article all to themselves. I see added value in this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good list, and a category can't contain the redlinks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or Delete This is a nice list, but I really would wanna see descriptions for at least one of those actors. Keep in mind that lists are there to serve purpose that no category can, besides redlinks. If any of you can explain to me what this one can, I'd be more than happy to change my vote to keep. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and take a page out of the List of Harry Potter cast members book. It looks much nicer, it's organized, coherent and best of all...FEATURED! :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a list. We have thousands of them. "Unencyclopedic" isn't itself a deletion rationale, and there's nothing more of substance in the nomination. Mandsford has at least tried to make a case for deletion, but that argument (and that of TheBlazikenMaster) is contrary to the WP:CLS guideline. (See also the opinions of myself and others expressed at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Categories vs Lists). AndyJones (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, I had nominated this article (or a list) for AFD for two major reasons. These were (and still remains, so can be are) 1. The list does not make itself more informative than the category, Indian film actors and 2. The list is an indiscriminate one which gives the opportunity to all and sundry editors (be it IP or Vandals) to include their names in it. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To which the answers are: 1. WP:CLS is a guideline and covers this point thoroughly, as does the discussion I linked to. 2. It is not indiscriminate, it is a list of Indian Film Actors: clearly a notable and discriminate category of people. If that were not true we would have to delete the category also. The opportunity to add rubbish to an article is not a grounds to delete the article: this is a wiki, and the opportunity to vandalise is a feature of every article we have. AndyJones (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hoping that fans of Indian film will take the opportunity to add more information to make this a better article, such as an example of a film or role that an actor is known for. I didn't vote for a "delete", because there is room for improvement. I didn't vote for "keep" either, since at the moment, it's not much of an article. Someone wrote, "I don't see what's wrong with it", and I'm hoping that that's a bid for ideas on improving the piece... rather than an attitude that it's perfect. A list has to have something to make it more useful than an existing category. It looks like the consensus will be to keep the article, so there will be plenty of chances to make this something good. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i dun see anything wrong with it too because it is instead helpful not to search again and again and then get to the profile of a certain actor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.147.38 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You raise a good point, and one that's worth remembering in response to "a category is better" argument. Wikipedia is great, but a search will not take you to a category page. Why is that? I have no idea. It seems like it would be obvious, but the only way you would even reach a category page is if you happened to find one of the articles, notice on the bottom of the page that it's in a particular category, and then click on that link at the bottom of the page. So, 58.65, whoever you are, you've persuaded me. Thankx. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nominator indicated they were happy to go with the speedy deletion request originally there, and article clearly qualified for such. Article can be recreated from reliable sources if the member for Berowra departs this year. Orderinchaos 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berowra by-election, 2008

Total speculation. None of the sources say that the sitting member is retiring. Possible hoax article. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops. I accidentally put in a delete request on top of a speedy delete request. Feel free to delete speedily. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Search Google news for "Ruddock" or "Berowra" and you'll find no mention of any by-election. The article's creator has just copy and pasted the Mayo by-election, 2008 article with minor alterations. Bush shep (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but tag for cleanup. I would like to note that while it is true deletion is a poor substitute for cleanup, arguing an article can be improved is no substitute for actually improving it. This article can only be kept so many times under the pretense that it has potential - there do come times when a chronically problematic article is best served by starting from scratch. Therefore I offer the following - to those who say it would be easiest to delete and start over, I suggest that a wholesale rewrite does not require literal deletion of the existing version. To those saying it should be kept because it is salvageable, please salvage it. Eventually folks are going to get tired of seeing this reappear time and time again and it'll eventually be deleted by default. Shereth 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Christianity

Previous AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist-Christian parallels

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity and Buddhism

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity

This article is a hopeless mess of original research and fringe theories. No information is better than wrong information. I suggest deleting and then starting from scratch. Jehochman ^Talk 10:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start from scratch. Per nom. Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You nominated it, so you do not need to also "vote" for deletion. Edison (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am entitled to comment however I like. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Delete and start from scratch. I was considering attempting to rescue this article but I can't see how it could be done.Coffeeassured (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start from scratch It just needs to be deleted and then restarted. --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't want to see a snowball delete of what appears to be a good topic, if not a good article. If deleted, I endorse the "start from scratch" idea. I've saved it on my computer, and hope that the author(s) will have that opportunity before a deletion takes place. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First off, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are many books and research out there about the connection between Buddhism and Christianity. It is not original research, in fact the article itself is filled with references. It is also not a fringe theory, many people believe in this theory which is supported in the article with all the references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to WP:OR and WP:SYN. --T-rex 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity which was the former name of this article. There are some good arguments why this article should be kept there. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a topic is encyclopedic and notable, there is no established practice or guideline in the English language Wikipedia for deleting it so that in the future someone can create an improved version. That proposal seems more like a way of getting rid of an article which is upsetting. If it has problems, fix it. In the previous AFD, which resulkted in Keep, I said "Strong Keep This well referenced article about a notable topic has twice been placed up for deletion and twice the attempt to remove it failed. Scholars were discussing this since the late 19th century. The content has been the subject of aan ongoing edit war. Editing is preferable to deletion, and the argument that we have to delete it and start creating it again is completely nonsensical. Just keep the good parts and delete the unreferenced or POV or OR parts. There is a long scholarly history of comparative religion, taught at major universities, comparing the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity with those of Buddhism. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, but the article is obviously undergoing a polemic edit war. Those who have studied comparative religion should take a look at the article and use Wikipedia edit policies, and perhaps RFC to straighten out any POV edit warring going on under control using the tools available. Disruptive editors can be controlled via RFC and blocking if necessary." Edison (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator failed to mention that this article has previously been nominated for deletion three times:*[30] October 25, 2006, when titled Buddhist-Christian parallels. Result Keep. [31] January 8, 2007 when the title was Christianity and Buddhism. Result No consensus. July 10, 2007, when the title was Buddhist influences on Christianity. Result Keep and the closing admin, Daniel Case noted "As the keep votes note, the topic is eminently worthy of encyclopedic attention and we have never AFAICR deleted an article just to rebuild it. In its present form, it is beginning to show a lot of promise and might well, once the major cleanup is done and it is fully sourced, be a good candidate for GA status. I do implore the keep voters to continue working on the article, though." Edison (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change. This article was heavily edited by User:PHG shortly after the last AfD. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for the reasons behind my concerns.Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Clearly, a great deal of time and effort went into creating this article. Its main sin is a lack of focus. It needs a good, solid rewrite -- I don't see how Wikipedia benefits from having it deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really challenging topic to gather and summarize sources on, let alone stylize. Reading through the article, I don't see any WP:OR or WP:FRINGE, because to several editor's credit, each section of the article includes a whole spectrum of well-referenced statements. Clicking on section 2--Buddhism and Christianity#Christian awareness of Buddhism, one discovers the referenced quote from the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004) that "speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation." Clicking on section 4--Buddhism and Christianity#Buddhist influence, one discovers another well-referenced section with the sourced quote from Jerry H. Bentley that "the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity". Bentley observes that scholars "have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus." So in terms of WP:5P, I see the article meeting the basic standard for both our blue Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and green Wikipedia has a neutral point of view standard pilliars. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firefly noted refs in the article which deny a historical foundation for saying Buddhism influenced Christianity. If that is a well supported conclusion, then it would provide a negative answer to scholarly discussion in the late 19th century about possible influences. We should absolutely not be in the position here of voting as to whether we think Christianity was devinely inspired or whether Christian views owed something to pre-existing Buddhist views. The point is whether this has been a notable topic, with scholarly references in books, refereed journals and encyclopedias. If scholars over 100 years ago wrote about parallels between Christianity and Buddhism, then it cannot be original research to include it in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely agree with Edison's comment. My intention was merely to highlight the range of sourced views in the article. I tried to get one from each side of the spectrum to show that the article is balanced. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Reading this page has convinced me that there is an wreckless attempt to bury critical thinking as I cannot find one valid reason to scratch the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.90.80 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biases towards Christianity, for instance, one chapter is named only "Buddhist influence" in which several well respected scholars state that Christianity has been influenced by Buddhism, yet, several chapters down we find the chapter that begins, "Christian influence on Buddhism" which does not give any possible explination for what Christianities influence on Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.90.80 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, sourcable and sourced. Throw this AfD out and block future ones. This is a waste of everyone's time, and, potentially-- eventually, some seem to hope-- a loss of a lot of perfectly good information at Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Then read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. User:PHG was a main author of the presently discussed article. It has been established that PHG had, perhaps inadvertently, cherry picked sources, misrepresented sources, and inserted original research into Wikipedia. This article appears to need very thorough cleaning up, but it is nearly impossible to know what is good and what is bad. I felt that blanking and restarting would be faster than trying to check and patch every fact. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as someone who watched from the sidelines during that arbitration case, I would like to support Jehochman here in his concerns. His nomination is a good-faith effort to address potential problems with this article. Sometimes, just as for copyvios, you do have to start from scratch if there are deeply embedded problems. I would, however, like to see some actual problems pointed out, not just hypothetical ones. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When it has been established that an editor has engaged in a systematic pattern of misrepresenting sources, and we see here the same pattern of "Eastern thought lead/influenced Western thought" on a topic that is covered by same editor's topic ban, I believe the assumption flip flops. Note that the editor in question uses obscure resources that are not available at my local library. I am challenging the validity of the facts in this article. Those facts which cannot be verified should be removed. I believe the burden in this case must fall on those who claim that facts are accurate because Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance has created a presumption of unverifiability for this particular editor, writing on this topic, at the time the writing occurred. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If User:Jehochman knew of this issue, why wasn't it stated up front in nomination argument (which as written is miserable in doing the article justice)? Moreoever, why did User:Jehochman as the nominator add a !vote? Such a stilted AfD argument, an unnecessary !vote, and then later on bringing up this PHG issue pushes this process towards that of a kangaroo court, i'm afraid. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfDs are dynamic, and opinions change during the course of the discussion, though I agree Jehochman should have raised this issue up front. When I first saw the article my immediate reaction was "PHG". It is just the sort of "compare and contrast" topic that he writes on, and the article name changes in the past are another red flag, of PHG trying to find somewhere to place the stuff he wants to write about. I absolutely agree that an article is needed on this topic, but unless someone will commit to going through the whole article and verifying the sources in detail (and not just that they exist, but that they have been properly represented in the article), then I am afraid the article may be misleading. A good start would be to compare the article with our articles on Buddhism and Christianity. Any differences would need to be discussed, as it is possible the editors of those articles have rejected stuff that is being allowed here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not mention PHG initially, because I assumed that PHG was working with a mentor (he is no longer), and that there was no need to start a conflict with him again. Regrettably, I have now taken this matter to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration again, as it is clear that articles for deletion cannot handle this problem. We cannot get into these conflicts on each and every article that needs to be cleaned up. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like an interesting and well sourced subject.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check references, don't just say it looks good. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think there is a serious with the way that very good references are mixed up with very unreliable sources and it might be better to start the page again based on the reliable sources from the old article. At the very least a very solid effort needs to be made to remove the dubious references.Coffeeassured (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment O, I have an idea. Quit not ready to on this article I am (as yoda might say). ~~Looking through the diffs, I see that PHG does in fact do some weird editing.~~ These concerns can be addressed if we revert the article back to [32]. ~~This version predates PHG's nonsense.~~ --Firefly322 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've ventured into my UC San Diego library's shelves on Jesus-studies (quite a few books there surprisingly). I'm looking at PHG's main source: The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity. Looking through the diffs, his or her edits are clean, at least until [33] --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance also covered cherry picking of sources, where a fringe or minority view would be given excessive prominence. If you are willing to carefully check and balance the article, I have no objection, but I felt that it might be easier to start from scratch, possibly salvaging bits and pieces. Historiography is not easy. We must be careful to give different theories appropriate weight. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd be satisfied with that. However, several subsequent editors have made helpful additions since that time. Could we possibly identify the major helpful additions and add them onto the version you linked above? If so, the result of this discussion could be Revert to pre-PHG version and restore subsequent helpful edits, if practical. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and clean. This is a highly worthy subject, with quite a bit of disputable material though. I think I barely contributed about 15% to this article, mainly well-sourced historical background, quotes and photographs. Of course, this subject fascinates me, as do other subjects about cultural interaction (Greco-Buddhist art, Franco-Mongol alliance, France-Japan relations (19th century), France-Thailand relations, Sino-Roman relations, Arab-Norman civilization etc...), but it seems that some people just feel very uneasy to hear anything about historical interactions between Christians and Buddhists, Franks and Mongols, French and Japanese, Normans and Muslims etc... All I write is properly sourced, even if sometimes rare, arcane and a matter of controversy. Although Jehochman beautifully managed to get me topic-banned for a while (I respect Arbcom rulings though, even if I think they are wrong), I am proud that the Arbcom confirmed that it continued to assume good-faith in my edit, and that it actually encouraged me to keep contributing to other areas of Wikipedia besides Ancient and Middle-Ages history. I would appreciate if Jehochman could also follow this ruling and assume good faith with my contributions instead of making constant ad-hominem attacks. As for this article, please just highlight material you think is disputable and discuss. Cheers. PHG (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested that the subject was unworthy. The problem is that we have problems with undue weight and verifiability. Cleaning up this article will require considerable effort, probably more than just starting from scratch.Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is User:Jehochman really the one who initiated the Arbcom inquiry into User:PHG's activities? If so, from my perspective I don't see any biased work at all (so far) to support such a weakening in good-faith towards User:PHG. On the other hand, this article was not in the arbcom list of this decision nor has User:Jehochman's arguments and behavior in this AfD (superfluous !vote, completely off-the-wall AfD argument, which failed to mention up front the concerns about PHG). I'm beginning to think this AfD is disruptive and a waste of a lot editor's time. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rules lawyering is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep part of a series of interfaith articles in the topic of Comparative religion; q.v. Islam and Christianity, Judaism and Christianity, etc. There's a problem with the content? {{sofixit}}! -- Kendrick7^talk 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no doubt in User:Jehochman's good faith, and I think the arbcom case against PHG, as well as PHG's continued refusal to acknowledge that there's any problem in his use of sources, warrants close scrutiny of any article that PHG has edited. Furthermore, I think that Buddhism and Christianity has severe problems--e.g., the use of low-quality sources (Blavatsky? really?), a passel of original research, and an undefined topic which leads to the article having a vague and broad scope. However, all of these things should be solved through discussion at the article's talk page, rather than an AfD. I think the suggestion of deleting the article and starting over is a good one, but it's not the usual course of action we take (I have no idea why). It's fully within our traditions, though, to prune the article severely by removing OR and poorly sourced material, and that seems like a course of action that should be followed here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was loath to do such a pruning as it seemed likely to lead to an edit war. There comes a time when an article is such poor quality that the best path forward is to erase it and start afresh. Feel free to do it, and shut this process down early. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Despite my concerns with Jehochman's AfD, he turns out to be on the right path. PHG has been using questionable sources, even in Buddhism and Christianity. It turns out that Elmar R. Gruber and Holger Kersten have a rather bad reputation as writers. I'll prepare a few quotes from one of their more famous books, shortly. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry if I have caused you any stress. Perhaps we can work together to clear any dubious information from the article. I will concede at this point there is no chance of blanking the article. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps we can work together here. Though I now think you're right, it's gonna be a lot work...
      - Yeah. It's quite possible if I had known more about PHG's bad choices of sources, I would have been cavalier towards him or her. At times I'm far from a paragon of always looking rational, which my edit history can attest.
      - At any rate, PHG uses the source The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity by E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten. Its authors also wrote The Jesus Conspiracy whose article and excerpts any editors can read about for themselves. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very fringe stuff....Andycjp (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Editors should not be made fools. ~~And that is what PHG does those who might show him or her good faith.~~ (Perhaps it's wrong to blame PHG for the synth, but there is synth with fringe and OR.) The nomination argument, though lacking evidence and a clear statement of concerns, is correct. There has been a WP:SYN of WP:OR with WP:FRINGE. And it's a daunting task to undo this mess. It's not just the use of WP:FRINGE books like the one by E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten, it's also the captions under the pictures. Those pictures are real, but the captions are highly, highly suspect and difficult to verify or invalidate with quality sources. This !vote should be taken to invalidate all previous statements that may contradict it (e.g., my striked keep !vote). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefly322. There is indeed quite a bit to clean up in this article. I personnally removed "farfetched and unreferenced claims" [34], added quotes from the Jewish encyclopedia [35], and I think the only thing I did about E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten was put a fair use image of their book cover as an illustration of the litterature on the subject. I'll be glad to discuss if there are specific issues. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PHG. Then can you tell us what the top 3 sources for this article might be? (I honestly didn't see any good sources strong asserted. And I did give a good faith look.) --Firefly322 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only contributed small portions of this article (best guess, about 15% of the total). My source for some of the iconographical similarities is Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691018308. For cultural interaction stuff, it tends to be Foltz Religions of the Silk Road (Palgrave Macmillan) ISBN 0312233388 and Jerry H. Bentley Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) ISBN 0195076400 and some of The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia by Frances Wood ISBN 0520243404, and quite a lot of other sources for historical background. These are books I personnally own and cherish :). Cheers PHG (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library is closed today due to the 4th of July, so I can't check these right away. By the way, I don't see The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia by Frances Wood cited or referenced in the article anywhere. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at these four history/archielogical books. The Andre Grabar text mentions Buddha on 2 out of ~300 pages. And these are merely passing mentions of parallels. What I think needs to happen is for the article to be separated into a series of or at least two aritcles:

One on the possible historical influences (including classic WP:FRINGE like that of Arthur Lillie, which has been analyzed by at least a few respectable scholars and probably excluding relatively recent WP:FRINGE like that of The Jesus Conspiracy and its authors, since all respectable scholars, other than very kindly labeling them "amateurs", appear to be ignoring their work).
Another article on the parallels and contrasts of Buddhist and Christian thought

I'd be willing to try and work with User:PHG if he or she wants. FYI, he or she clearly has a strong commitment to respectable sources, just not sure if he or she guards the knowledge in wikipedia's articles as a jealous lover would against corruption and WP:FRINGE. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: THIS NOMINATION FOR DELETION IS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY GUIDELINES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. This article is controversial and Christians in particular are up in arms. This article is well sourced.

Also this material is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

--216.27.141.135 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Much of this article is based on writings of respected scholars who HAVE established historicity of contacts as a possible source of influence between early Christianity and Buddhism:

^ Iqbal Singh, S. Radhakrishnan, Arvind Sharma, (2004-06-24)). The Buddhism Omnibus: Comprising Gautama Buddha, The Dhammapada, and The Philosophy of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press.

1. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Part One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935), vol. 1, p. 449.

^ History of Religions, 1918, E. Washburn Hopkins, Professor of Sanskrit and comparative Philology, p 552,556
^ Bentley, Jerry H. (1993). Old World Encounters. Cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. Oxford University Press.

Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol 3. Charles Eliot 20 of 22: Egypt was a most religious country, but it does not appear that asceticism, celibacy or meditation formed part of its older religious life, and their appearance in Hellenistic times may be due to a wave of Asiatic influence starting originally from India. [3]

I also fail to see how "no historical evidence exists" of the influence WHEN THERE ARE ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS of an Indian Emperor'S WRITINGS IN STONE saying THE CONQUEST OF THE DHAMMA HAS BEEN WON IN ALEXANDRIA, EVEN MENTIONING THE EGYPTIAN KINGS NAME.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.141.135 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Keep it for future discussion on this topic which discusses what could have happened long time ago. Evidence may be not 100% reliable. But we can never get 100% evidence in Religious History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlwin (talk • contribs) (moved from top)
Strong Delete WP:NPOV and WP:NOR apply here. I wouldn't know where to begin fixing this article. Fringe theories are intermingled with reliable sourcing of noncontroversial events to give the impression that the fringe ideas are mainstream. Sometimes this results in nonsense:

Early academic research centers around Buddhist influence in Palestine and Greece during the five centuries prior to the birth of Christ. According to American historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, by the time that Jesus was born, "Buddhism had already spread through much of India and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China."[2]

The second sentence (and the ref) verifies the claim that Buddhism reached into India and Central Asia, but NOT the claim that it had reached into Egypt or Palestine by the time of the birth of Christ. The Mauryan proselytizing section is no better. We move from a reference in Pliny regarding Indian ambassadors to the claim that 'streams' of buddhist monks moved into Greece and influenced philosophical currents. This article is filled with extraordinary claims but few unimpeachable sources. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic is clearly notable, and merits having an article exist on the subject. However, the current article seems to be to be pushing a lot of fringe theories and POV, and that leads me to think that deleting this article and creating the article anew, without having to deal with determining what to do with the often problematic current content, might be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 1. New inforamtion. 2. cite reference is affluent. 3. It seems to be non-christian's views. other point of view is helpful to NPOV. -- WonRyong (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. What new information?
  2. Which references? (those which I identified as WP:FRINGE or those which I found to be good but, as abused, irrelevant to the aricle?)
  - - As one who has honestly spent some time at a major University library researching this topic, I continue with my position of too much WP:SYN, too much WP:OR, and too much WP:FRINGE. So delete and userfy to someone who is committed to creating a non-WP:SYN article avoiding WP:FRINGE and excluding WP:OR. So far I have not seen anyone make such a commitment (By the way I certainly haven't committed to that. Nor has PHG. Regardless of such a commitment, strong delete is still the correct course of action. It is completely justifiable based on the article's WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SYN. No justifiable grounds for Keep, which I had discover the hard way.) --Firefly322 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me or any other admin if you require a copy to transwiki to the Warhammer wiki. Neıl 龱 10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Mechanicus

This sub-article of a sub-article of an article describes the in-universe philosophical basis for a fictional religious position. No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Allemandtando (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the abovementioned "summary of this concept ... present in another larger umbrella article", whereever it is. -- saberwyn 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Take content and move it to the Adeptus Mechanicus article. AlmondManTwo (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acknowledges itself as fictional element, meets notability guidelines for same. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from above...no reason to write a unique response for an identical claim.) This, like the other articles noted, fails to meet WP:FICT, WP:GNG, and WP:TOYS. Because it is fiction does not make it inherently notable. The notability guidelines aren't stringent. They do not require that the sisters of battle cure cancer, just that an independent, reliable source wrote something about them. White Dwarf, Fanatic Magazine (this fanatic, as there are lots of mags w/ the same name) and the manuals for play are all printed by the game manufacturer. They are not independent of the article subject.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out of universe notability, no independent sources and fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is not independent. Notability is neither asserted by the article nor established by the source. This WOULD be easier if it were all in one afd. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for that - I didn't realise I could do that. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. There are pros and cons with that, presuming that articles are sufficiently distinct from each other. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice, both articles appear to have some notability assuming descriptions are true however lack pf independant secondary sources fails to meet the criteria in WP:N. Admin or crat closing may change my suggestion to merge if some sources are added to verify the veracity of the articles, however I do not believe that each subject deserves distinct articles, the content of Cult Mechanicus should be merged to the main article. BigHairRef | Talk 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Notability isn't established by references independent of Games Workshop and its subsidiaries. This fails WP:WAF and (the spirit of) WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA (and, yes, I know that WH40K isn't primarily a video game, that's why I said the "spirit of"). --Craw-daddy | T | 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by MBisanz, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Rida

Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria. triwbe (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable and most likely a hoax. Note that AfD tag has been repeatedly removed. Ros0709 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax...there is already an article about an Aussie namedPaul Khoury and it doesn't mention this rapper. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Obvious hoax, no proof that said rapper even exists (and believe me, with rappers, you'd prolly get about a million MySpace/directory/lyrics hiits; not so here). G3 the albums too. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me or any other admin if you require a copy to transwiki to the Warhammer wiki. Neıl 龱 10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Mechanicus

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Allemandtando (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the abovementioned "summary of this concept ... present in another larger umbrella article", whereever it is. -- saberwyn 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge the Cult Mechanicus article with this AlmondManTwo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acknowledges itself as fictional element, meets notability guidelines for same. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from above. Basically the same refutation in each AfD) This, like the other articles noted, fails to meet WP:FICT, WP:GNG, and WP:TOYS. Because it is fiction does not make it inherently notable. The notability guidelines aren't stringent. They do not require that the sisters of battle cure cancer, just that an independent, reliable source wrote something about them. White Dwarf, Fanatic Magazine (this fanatic, as there are lots of mags w/ the same name) and the manuals for play are all printed by the game manufacturer. They are not independent of the article subject. (Signing late) Protonk (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out of universe notability, no independent sources and fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Weak Delete (see below) The article shouldn't be this long, but that doesn't matter. Does anyone have a copy of the "Fanatic Magazine Issue 5" cited in the reference section? If that had some coverage of the subject specifically we could keep this article. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a games workshop publication. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. Ok. Change mine to weak delete. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice, both articles appear to have some notability assuming descriptions are true however lack pf independant secondary sources fails to meet the criteria in WP:N. Admin or crat closing may change my suggestion to merge if some sources are added to verify the veracity of the articles, however I do not believe that each subject deserves distinct articles, the content of Cult Mechanicus should be merged to the main article. BigHairRef | Talk 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo (programming language)

Procedural nomination. Article was improperly designated for speedy deletion. Not entirely clear this programming language exists given the lack of references. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial variation of brainfuck; I can't find any references on it outside of Wikipedia and its clones. The article is written in an unencyclopedic ironic tone (the "basic readability problem" that this language "solves" is that brainfuck can actually be read) that doesn't help, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is: would it make sense to redirect to brainfuck? After all, there's no solid evidence that this thing even exist. As for the ironic tone, it is indeed an ominous sign, but on the other hand, brainfuck is itself more or less an inside joke. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only support a redirect if we can find some actual secondary sources about the language. As it is, I can't even find primary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article history (and talk) suggests the article to be a joke. No sources, no Google hits to find any, and no mention of notability whatsoever. There are a zillion copycats of brainfuck out there; only significant ones go on here. The others can please go do themselves the Turing way. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and Jafet --SJK (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or a minor variation on an essentially unusable joke language. No sources, no notability, no evidence of use, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax -- either that, or an extraordinarily well-kept secret. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom either a hoax or such a minor variation that it is not worth noting anyhow. RFerreira (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brainfuck is a real language, but whether Apollo is fake or based on Brainfuck, there are certainly too few sources. Apollo is mentioned on the internet so scarcely (and where else would it be mentioned) that it would be pretty impossible to give it citations anyway. -Keith (Hypergeek14)^Talk 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This esoteric programming language is too esoteric: faith is necessary... but Wikipedia demands sources, and there is not. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone thinks they can address the notability issues, drop me a line linking to this AfD and I'll userfy the article for you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Affair

Non-notable. Album was never released. Absolutely no sources. Very unreliable. Album cover is sourced from what looks like a fan site. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-known bootleg by The Stones. There are many, but this is by far the most popular. The article lacks sources and that's something I can work on, but this is a notable album. Stan weller (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:MUSIC. Bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calmay

Calmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The article of Calmay Laoac Pangasinan should be deleted because there is no references.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a barangay, or district of a municipality, does not provide inherent notability. Since the article is unsourced, ordinary notability is not apparent either. Sandstein 08:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to it being recreated with sources someday. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Laoac, Pangasinan. Google search does not give any sources regarding "unwritten history".--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clumsy (album). Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car Crash (Our Lady Peace song)

Car_Crash_(Our_Lady_Peace_song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

fails WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I was simply trying to make information easier to find for people who would be interested in researching something like this, that way they wouldn't have to search across the internet to find something that's mainly people's opinions instead of facts. --SupermansDead (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)SupermansDead[reply]

Redirect to Clumsy (album), for reasons given in nomination. Neelix (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clumsy (album), article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we ought to stop discouraging fruitful additions to Wikipedia. I know a lot about Our Lady Peace so I could help un "stub-ify" the article. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Song is now number 1 in UK charts is very notable.. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Wiv Me

AfDs for this article:

Apparently non-notable track not yet released as a single. There appear to be few facts of significance, just description. This article has been recreated after previous deletion. No references are listed Tommer312 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tommer312 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a music video for this track. I think the article needs more sources to assert its notability.

--Madchester (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has already been deleted. No sources are listed.--Tommer312 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable song - it's been played loads on the music channel and, according to the article at least, it went straight to No 1 on the iTunes download charts. That information needs to be verified, to be fair, but if true, means this song surely is "notable". GillsMan (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not acording to WP:CHARTS unfortunately. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any WP:verified and WP:reliably sourced content to the article on the album this song is from and redirect until such a time as the size of the song's content is too large for the parent article. -- saberwyn 09:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe this is still up for deletion. If iTunes selling the song isnt enough then I don't know what is. Do people not listen to the radio, watch tv or even never heard of glastonbury??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackw.ward (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song has now been released; it's no 1 in the iTunes download chart; its acoustic performance was included in the best bits from the BBC's Glastonbury coverage; it's not on an album, so it can't be included elsewhere. Sonofulster (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song is due to be the UK number one single this week, so it should not be deleted as it will just have to be re-made once the song charts this Sunday. It will be notable as it is the rapper's first top 5 single and it is not on an album. TopopMAC1 (talk)
Keep Notable song, looks like there are reliable sources out there too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google shows many sources that are reliable about the subject. I see little to no reasons to why this is non-notable. Passes notability per WP:MUSIC. -- RyRy (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was inappropriate forum. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Matranga

I came across this page one day and found out there are two encyclopedia pages on this person, the other being Dave Matranga. However, Dave Matranga is more developed, and it seems David Matranga is just a less developed copy. So, my reason for the AFD is because the person has two Wikipedia articles, both coming across with the same information. LAA Fan 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article merged to Dave Matranga. I recommend moving David Matranga (voice actor) to David Matranga. — Lomn 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Matranga (voice actor) is not the same person as David Matranga. One is a baseball player, and one is a voice actor. Did you mean David Matranga to Dave Matranga?--LAA Fan 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged David Matranga to Dave Matranga per your nomination (which requires no deletion discussion). Given that David Matranga is now entirely superfluous, I recommend moving DM(Voice) to that article name to avoid unnecessary parenthesization. — Lomn 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no reason to keep the second article on the baseball player. I'll move David Matranga (voice) to David Matranga.--LAA Fan 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be deleted, though, so that DM (voice) can be moved to David Matranga.--LAA Fan 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.L.R. (Free Lunch Ratio)

unnotable neologism/nonsense. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell y'all is that the term is going to be used in my next book, and it is quite prevalent in our company. Other than that, I give up - y'all win. Dealing with book editors is much easier than this.

Ed Williams

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Stormie (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like "Forrest Gump" or "Alice In Wonderland"?

Ed Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by BTORocks (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link. Not just the name of the page. "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." Emphasis mine. --Stormie (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'll never write about anything else in Wikipedia again. Y'all have articles that have severe integrity issues, and you're worrying about something like this? Damn, just pull it, I'm going on and doing something else instead.

Ed Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.139.224 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a term I've heard before in my company, rather like frequent flyer miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaBathory (talk • contribs)

Note--above user has only one edit, and it is to this page. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. I placed the {{prod}} tag on this before. And anyone who actually types the word "y'all" is probably not a very good source of information. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, snobbishness lives. "Y'all" is probably one of the most commonly used southern slang words in the vernacular, there is even a magazine named that. Eastlaw, I have a BBA, MBA, and have authored three published books that actually sold a lot of copies. I would simply state that deliberately insulting someone because of terminology used as a result of living in a particular region is not a pretty thing.

Delete. Bizarrely, I've heard this term, though in a bit of a different context (more of a they-pay vs. you-pay thing). If there are books that explain it and its use as a business concept, then there might be an article here, but I don't think this one is it. As with everything on this site, we need sources, which this article lacks. Incidentally, I also say y'all on a regular basis. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work at Georgia-Pacific, and I can tell you the term is widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.119.8 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. Only Google hits for "free lunch ratio" (about 23), are about a term that seems to relate to free school meals, and some physics term by the look of it. The same for Google Books, and no hits at all in blogs, or in google news. If the phrase takes off, then an article can be created. Silverfish (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, as per above. Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFT --T-rex 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thing made up one day. The claim it will be used in the author's next book smacks of the crystall ball. (And "Y'all" in written text seems odd, since it is normally spoken rather than written, but has no bearing on whether the article should be kept. Bah now. ) Edison (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to OR and POV issues. Unreferenced article, no evidence here that the topic is potentially sourcable. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funding of open source software

Not a real article. Just unreferenced (no, that's no real reference), badly written original research. Damiens.rf 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contains references, isn't badly written, valid content for an encyclopedia. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but provide references (so tagged) and rewrite with Gratis versus Libre in mind. At least most of this can be done by global find/replace OSS with freeware or free software or FLOSS as appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source, rewrite in narrative form, and merge into Open source software. The explanation of why developers and others undertake efforts without expectation of monetary payment seems essential to even a rudimentary understanding of that topic and does not appear to be adequately treated at that article. Pop Secret (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just in case you didn't notice, i think you may have posted the response to a different but related AfD. Obviously, no one would think that this article provides any of the information you claim, even as the highly biased original research it is, it doesn't claim to explain why people produce open source software. I can say as someone who has open sourced software, worked on open source projects for businesses and even worked on public free software projects, that i did not do it for the funding expressed in this highly based original research article. The few points expressed here with credit are all treated fairly well on the open source and free software articles, especially considering funding is such a small topic, highly unspecific to open source (read: half of these funding method, ignoring the author's opinions on reasoning, are just as valid as they are for closed source project. Or as it happens in the reality away from the very small part of open source represented by Richard Stallman, projects are funded, and businesses or developers decide about the source availabity and other licensing points such as freedom at a later date.)- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent fork of Open source software. Unreferenced maybe, but irrefutably has some basic factual content. People realy need to give better deletion reasons than 'not a real article'. MickMacNee (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if we can really source all that. Isn't that just original research? There is published material available for that? --Damiens.rf 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:MickMacNee --T-rex 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs a vigourous rewrite. However, the subject is notable in regard to the open source sector. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs some work and references, but I think this is one of the most important parts of open source software. swa q 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, the article is unsourced as a topic, with only 2, very non-specific (a listing to other articles at MIT), references for the actual data. Secondly, it is highly unencylopedic, I notice, and for obvious reason that there does not exist an article on the funding of non-open source software, perhaps because it is such a tiny facet of all business that to pretend like it deserves an exception is beyond recognition of Wikipedia's consensual support of Open Source Software as an ideal over the standard business practice of choosing such things on a per product basis, or as a corporate decision. I am refering here not only to software companies here, but to general Business practice, all facets of which do not having equally as useless and POV articles. Specifically, this article, which doesn't source one of it's conclusions, or profer an alternate Point of View on any point, Provides the information in a format that is far from useful or encyclopedic. It would be better suited as a properlly formatted and passage-based article, and indeed, many of the pertinent points are already included in other, well written and sourced articles on the subject. I would not support a merge, given that it appears to have been written as one man's opinion on he subject, and none of the content that could be saved, is unique, infact the serious points enjoy comfortable places of rest in well sourced passages already on other pages. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to add to my above Reason for deletion, and to make sure it is noticed by people who bore of my above reason half way through. As the ultimate proof that this is complete WP:OR, the entrie article, as well as many comments here imply that open source software is a Venture undertaken for no profit, that is externally funded. Open source and Free Software can both be sold for a price, produced by a corporation, whose emloyees recieve payment as part of that employment, and are entirely seperate from the monetary aspects of business. While many public project undertaken on the internet for example recieve donations or external funding, the majority of open source is not specially funded. The implication that all open source is freeware is also complete gibberish, even in terms of the rest of this article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The exact motivations for a given open source project and why it is open source are unique to the project itself. Without scholarly sourcing of the classification defined here in, coupled with the open speculation in the article's text, is almost a textbook definition of WP: OR. This article is such blatant OR that it might make sense to move it into namespace and use it as an example of OR. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most open source projects are developed using private resources so there is really no separate funding for this. I9o0q1 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's first edit MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite. It contains effectively nothing at the moment. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete or rewrite. If it needs a rewrite and that's why you're voting delete, that is a case of WP:PROBLEM. It would also be helpfully if you explained the term "contains effectively nothing", it is probably pretty hard for others to compreghend what you actually mean by that. MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Sandstein 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain please. A two word vote is not going to fly for an article that has so many basic statements of fact independant of any POV. We do not source every single statement on wikipedia to defend against accusations of original thought. We have unsourced/citation needed templates for a reason, Afd is not article cleanup. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're being pedant. Those things in the article are far from "basic statements of fact". --Damiens.rf 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hardly think I'm being pedantic by objecting to the assertion that the whole article is made up, which is all anyone can glean from the two word vote above. Vagueness isn't helpful here, as with your rebuttal, we aren't talking about a stub sized article here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and synthesis. LotLE×talk 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose it realy is too much to ask for specific examples from people. It's realy sad that people think they can be so lazy in justifying deletion as if other people can read their minds as to what their perception of the issue is, specifically. If people just want to fly by and make one word judgements without specific examples for people to rebutt/discuss/improve/remove, then that's fine, but the closer needs to take this into account when weighing up the good faith nature of these opinions, and resist the urge to become just another dumb head counting Afd wonk. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Take a look at the title of column 3 of the table; it has "possible motivation" and the data in the table is unsourced (the articles wikilinked inline do not discuss the motivation for funding in a sourced way). My problem with this is that nowhere in this article or in the subsidiary articles is there any such assertion of motivation. There are no published statements of motivation, etc. Such speculation is the very definition of what WP:OR seeks to avoid. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Unconventional Education

Fails WP:Note, reads like an advert; no citations to prove notability Blowdart | ^talk 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Full of peacock words. Created by user with name the same as the subject matter, obvious promotion. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vehemently, per nomination. If they can't get more specific about what they actually teach besides saying they're devoted to teaching a large spectrum of learning solutions, no minds should be entrusted to them. The entire piece reeks of peacock terms and complete bollocks, and suggests that this is some kind of consulting business masquerading as an institution of learning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heller

This could likely be speedily deleted as a CSD G11 (blatant advertising) but since it has been deleted twice before, I think an AfD is more fitting and could stop its recreation more easily. Does not meet WP:BIO and is clearly a WP:Coatrack meant to plug this person's many and sundry businesses. The references about this scuba diving enthusiast are mostly business listings, blurbs and other passing, incidental references which are not featured or significant as understood in WP:N (at least two don't even mention the subject's name). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What Gwen said. I chose one section ("Underwater Holdings, Inc.") yesterday, examined it, and wasn't impressed by what I found. (I'll miss the mention elsewhere of focusing on blurring lines, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by PeterSymonds per CSD G7. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Riachi

Bio for non-notable businessman. Damiens.rf 20:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were any reliable sources, it would have taken 1/10th the effort to cite them that various accounts have put into vandalizing this page, the article, and associated articles and talk pages and harassing the nominator. [36] This leads to the logical conclusion that the subject is not notable and thus should be deleted. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the page. No need for a fight. This is a vendetta and seems Damiens.rf has hired some help. :) .

Melkart1 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Melkart1[reply]

Comment Melkart, Please stop making personal attacks on other users. Also, please stop blanking the article - as the Afd tag clearly says 'Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.' Edward321 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Donoghue

Local politician with no other claims to notability. Contested prod, suggest deletion Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, no evidence of notability in reliable sources. And if this is deleted, I suggest his fellow council member David A. Marshall be deleted as well. Terraxos (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a politician with only a local constituency in/about a relatively small city (Portland, Maine) doesn't quite reach the level required by WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bramhall#Education as per usual precedent when school is not individually notable. Merge has already taken place so will just redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevill Road Junior School

No information on why the page is notable. Seems as though it were written by a student or former student of the school.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SCH -- Ratarsed (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as usual. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bramhall#Education to where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete first, keep second. This is formatted rather strange though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Karpowich

Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not won any major awards that would otherwise indicate notability. Can be recreated when and if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Neither player has any major awards, nor any other significant accomplishments that would set them apart from other junior players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
Delete both per nom. Black ngold29 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: We're not even talking about major junior players, which even so would not make them notable. RGTraynor 20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Karpowich is non-notable, but see below. Grsz ^talk 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable hockey player. Maybe in a couple years, but not now.leafschik1967 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has yet to win a major individual award in major junior hockey or the NCAA. Patken4 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not professional, yet: therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. No other valid assertion of notability. ccwaters (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Winkler

Strong Keep:
He might be a junior national team player, but in Norway he played 3 years for the Frisk Tigers, who are in the highest division in Norway. He's also only the 11th Norwegian player to get drafted to the NHL, only the 3rd on this side of the century.
I understand you want to delete junior players from nations who gets drafted every year, like Canada and the United States for example. But in this case I think we should make an exception, or else Category:Drafted Norwegians will be incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theilert (talk • contribs)
- Comment Just being drafted does not make one notable, and personally I think that category should probably go as well. That being said the source I had looked at had him only playing with the Junior version of the Frisk Tigers. Not the pro version. That being said I have since found one that has him listed as playing for the pro version, but it doesn't mention if he was playing as a pro or an amateur, as some of these leagues mix both. And either way it was only 1 year he played with the pro team not 3. -Djsasso (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the top Norwegian pro league, which makes him pass WP:ATHLETE. Grsz ^talk 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for playing in the top tier Norwegian league. matt91486 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in Norway's top league as a pro (Based on his EuroHockey profile), even if he went back to Jr afterwards.

Keep - Played 25 games in the GET-ligaen, according to EuroHockey.net.Delete Based off Twas Now's comment that the league is not "fully professional". Patken4 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*** – While the GET-ligaen is the highest hockey league in Norway, the pay is not enough to support players in the off-season. Thus, it might be considered something less than "fully professional". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at the moment we don't have any sources to corroborate that claim, and it is still the highest level in a relatively significant hockey playing nation. matt91486 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though one doesn't make as much money from playing in Norway as playing in the NHL, doesn't make them less professional. You can live off the salary, but some people have extra jobs to enhance their living standard. Norway is in fact an expensive country to live in. lil2mas (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Players in the Canadian Football League often have to hold second jobs to support their families. Regardless of how much you earn, if you're getting paid, you're pro. It just so happens that some leagues are richer than others. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus which defaults to keep. — _Maggot^Syn 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)

This is appears to be a soapbox This entry should be deleted

It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.

Previous attempts to list this AFD following the instructions for unregistered editors have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeanameimsickofmaking10attemptstoregister (talk • contribs) — Justgivemeanameimsickofmaking10attemptstoregister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Speedy Keep~~Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Clearly notable. Any bias should be cleaned up but that's not a deletion argument. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep This is a notable topic and while merge might be the choice that readily pops out to one, it is not the best choice. The notability of this topic merits its own article - there is quite a bit of information and a merger would cause the single article to violate WP:LIMIT. There is simply too much info to be relegated to a simple section of one article. WP:COATRACK fails to be an appropriate standard for deletion or merging - there are enough citations and reliable sources to indicate that the reports and allegations are notable enough to stand alone as a separate article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notice for deletion was removed again without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.99.97 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - obviously notable. Kelly ^hi! 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. As it stands, this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China on the topic of Falun Gong. They very well may deserve the bashing, but we should allow our principles to be subverted for that purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. There is enough verifiable and useful info to merit a "keep", but I concur with Jehochman that as an independent article it appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Either way it needs some NPOV editing and some real serious stylistic help. Doc Tropics 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Reports on Organ Harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners is something that has received major international attention. Many including The Amnesty, Prominent Medical Societies and UN Special Rapporteurs have raised their concerns. The importance of this topic comes from the fact that there has been an explosion in Chinese Organ Sales following the onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong. It was indeed a documented and known fact that China harvests organs from death penalty prisoners. But the Human Rights Community perceives these recent reports on organ harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners in a completely different light - because these are not "death penalty prisoner" who "have given consent" but innocent prisoners of conscience and also because of the sheer number of executions that should have been made to account for the recent surge in transplants( following onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong in 1999 ). This article is notable, in particular, because of the sheer number of people who would have had to be executed to explain China's Organ Transplant statistics for the past few years. A Yale University Thesis points out that "no group in China’s prison system other than Falun Gong practitioners that has the requisite population size, health and intensity of persecution to explain the rapid growth in the organ industry from 2000 to 2005"[37]. According to available reports, sources of some 45000 transplants remain unaccounted for.

The topic completely satisfies all guidelines mentioned in WP:Notability. The claim of the user who raised the AfD that the credibility of the article lies entirely on Epoch Times reports is completely False. Sources on the topic include ( and are not limited to ) Reports by David Kilgour and David Matas, Amnesty International Reports , Sky News Investigative Reports, A Yale University Thesis. Several Newspapers have reported on the issue. Several news Channels have reported on the issue - including CBC News.

The issue is one that has has had an international impact. Major concerns have been raised following these reports by many international Medical Bodies, including: National Kidney Foundation, United States; Australian Hospitals ban training Chinese surgeons in Transplant surgery. In May 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their previous request for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners[38].

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less heat, more light, please. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Enough reports and media have been generated from just this subject alone to warrant a separate article. It is related to organ harvesting in China in general, but it's also quite distinct. I don't get the coatrack reference, the article identifies its subject then goes over the sources and discussion on it. Where's the coat (or the rack)?--Asdfg12345 00:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General FYI - in an AfD debate, a "Merge" is essentially the same as a "Keep", since both result in the article being retained, not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs)

Keep, please! I think this is an issue of the utmost importance. It is indeed notable and indeed separate and distinct from the more general issue of organ harvesting in China. I would be very upset if this article is deleted. I have spent a lot of time commenting on this issue, this article.

Omvegan (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)— Omvegan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment What does your comments has to do with anything?--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree with above votes to Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, and clean up the POV stuff pushed by certain editors. Agree this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China - (following opinion is justified in talk archives) 1) the allegation remain an allegation to date, and this fact has been marginalized by certain editor; 2) Undercover investigations by US embassy and notable Chinese dissident has disproved key aspects of Falun Gong's vivisection allegation; 3) The Kilgour report, a report sponsored by Falun Gong, is given undue weight in the article in attempt to POV this article, and the reports critics (Congresstional Reserch Services, Ottawa Citizen, Harry Wu) are marginalized in POV attempts (eg, following every criticism with meaningless statement "Kilgour insist" but ignore "critics remain unconvinced").

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is ridiculous to say that David Kilgour and David Matas are somehow "sponsored". Remember that these are two Highly Respected figures in the Human Rights community. In the beginning of this international news conference itself they point out that they did the investigation voluntarily and was not paid by anyone to do so.[39]. Amnesty, U,N. Special rapporteurs all have raised their concerns on this issue. As pointed out in my comment above, the reports have had such an international impact that many countries have changed their transplant policies in response to the reports. A Yale University thesis based on financial analysis, self-incriminating evidence on Chinese transplant websites, Under-cover investigations by Sky News are among the many sources that corroborate the Kilgour-Matas reports. To be noted that the three sources of "criticism" u talk about are all merely pertinent to a specific case - The sujiatun case - where, evidence suggests, the Chinese authorities had sufficient time to clean up before any investigation could take place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stay on the topic please. You still haven't demonstrated why these allegations falls within wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22: The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. Wikipedia:COATRACK#Fact_picking: Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. --PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- There's an article called Persecution of Falun Gong--which is one of the human rights abuses in China. Can anyone tell me how merging the organ harvesting of Falun Gong article with the Organ harvesting in China article would be any different from merging the persecution of Falun Gong article with the Human rights abuses in China article? Both are sub-issues of a wider one. These are simple matters of space and sourcing; enough independent sources have been generated by just this Falun Gong side of the organ harvesting to warrant a separate article--not to mention the length the main article would blow out to--in the same way for any particular human rights abuse in China that has its own article apart from the central "human rights in China" article. If someone can explain this I would appreciate it. Still waiting for WP:COATRACK to be substantiated.--Asdfg12345 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crackdown/persecution of FLG has been noted and addressed by all parties involved in the issue. This article is currently only based on unproven allegations.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why the article titled "Reports of..." Your argument doesn't make the reports any less notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title means nothing if the contents does not reflect it. This article is not about the Kilgour Matas Report.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agrees with bobby fletcher. The PRC either harvests from FLG practitioners, or they don't. Until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that PRC actually harvest organs from FLG practitioners, these allegations does not deserve a separate article. The current article has numerous POV problems, especially bias and undue weight towards Kilgour Matas report which is only based on circumstantial claims and did not prove the allegation at all, while other critics such as Thomas Lum, Harry Wu, Glen McGregor etc are brushed aside. This article thus gives the reader a false impression that Kilgour-Matas is true and the CCP is somehow hiding facts.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These allegations concern crimes against humanity. The Chinese authorities have totally refused to give a thorough answer to the circumstantial evidence put forth in the Kilgour-Matas report. CCP's denial of the allegations has nothing to do with whether the article ought to be kept in Wikipedia. Nothing can be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" as long as they do not allow third-party researchers into the country and give them unlimited access. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please read WP:NPOV. The PRC authorities does not need to comply to a small minority of people, and the burden of proof is on Matas/Kilgour, not the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. my 2 cents regarding the point raised in the opening of this AfD.

It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
- It's encyclopedic according to wikipedia if the sources on the matter are cited, and they are.
- It's not as much news since the first findings where made in 2006 and the action itself is going back to 2000.
It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
- False. There are reports from Amnesty International, Manfred Novak, the UN inspector on torture, McMillan Scott, vice president of the United Nations, David Matas human rights lawyer specialized in the holocaust, David Kilgour and ex sectary of state of Canada, so all these people are not hired and can not be hired by Epoch Times.
Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.
- This material has lot's of details and controversies in it, I doubt that it could fit in the Organ harvesting in China article and still be NPOV.

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Editor HappyInGeneral seems to have neglected to mention the Kilgour/Matas report is sponsored by CIPFG, the political arm of Falun Gong. In the report appendix contains a letter from Falun Gong leader to Kilgour/Matas that they would be compensated via reimbursement. This fact demonstrates this report FLG is promoting is paid for by FLG. However this fact is not in the article.

Would also like to publically ask Editor Dilip, for the 3rd time, to stop removing the POV flag from this article, as obvious POV disputes continues from multiple editors. Hopefully this will also get some admin attention (please check Talk page/archive for background, Admin.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny now Falun Gong has enough money to buy high level official. LOL :) And somehow it does not matter to you that in their list of evidence they cite the documents available from the Chinese government. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ..Lol..:D.. What u are now claiming is David Kilgour and David Matas, two of the most-highly respected figures in the International Community, were "bought" and you know it because in their report's "appendix" they say .."in fact we were bought" :D. ( Well.. just in case someone is very new to the topic : The entire text of the report ( including all appendices ) is available online on many websites .And here are streaming videos of the international press conference where Kilgour and Matas submit there reports. In the very beginning itself they state that the investigations were done voluntarily and were not "paid" by anyone. What you are doing is referring to a letter requesting independent investigation and distorting it to push CCP propagana. )

I am also beginning to have rather serious concerns on who this "Bobby Fletcher" is. It is, in fact, well documented how the CCP hires spies and thugs to assault Falun Gong practitioners outside of China, interfere with peaceful protests etc...the assaults have gone up recently with many arrests of CCP hired thugs recently made. Also many are hired by the CCP to post pro-CCP comments on youtube, etc. on videos related to Tibetan Unrest, Persecution of Falun Gong etc. I don't assume the CCP is likely to spare wikipedia either. Some editors were, in the past, banned for vandalizing Falun Gong pages and the same editors were found removing info from the 1989 Tiananmen square incident page and other pages related to human rights violations by the CCP. I notice that this user has all these characteristics . Repeatedly adding POV tags to well written articles, making the weirdest claims ( like the slander against Kilgour and Matas he writes above) in his thinly veiled attempts to support the CCP's persecution and remove/sideline/POV-ize very relevant material. There are many such instances, a few of which I would like to point out here. Here he tries ( please see here ) to characterize brutal and unbelievably inhumane persecution as "cancer". Wang Bin's case from Kilgour-Matas reports he repeatedly attempts to pass of as "autopsy"(please see here) while attempting to cover up his vandalism by citing sources which do not even remotely support the allegations he makes . Even now international Human Rights organizations are working to release many prisoners of conscience, including Xu Na, the wife of popular Chinese singer Yu Zhou who was murdered by the CCP because he practiced Falun Gong ( http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-5-7/70333.html , http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article3779899.ece ). The persecution, needless to say, is a well-documented fact and even many American citizens, Cambridge university students, etc have been imprisoned and tortured for years -would this "bobbyfletcher" please give his "explanation" for these incidents along with an "explanation" for the fact there is a lot publicly verifiable evidence being pointed to by Kilgour and Matas point in their reports ... to mention one, the Chinese organ transplant websites carried a lot of self-incriminating stuff.. online archived versions of which are still available. He also often resorts to personal attacks on users as he has been doing recently against User:Asdfg. Such behavior , I believe , constitute a serious violation of wikipedia policies.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia--PCPP (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the personal attack?--Ave Caesar (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He suggested that bobby_fletcher is a CCP agent paid to post comments on wikipedia--PCPP (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising concerns about a user's possible conflict of interests doesn't seem to violate WP:NPA. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Dilip_rajeev flat out accused bobby_fletcher of being a "CCP spy and thug" used to "assault FLG practitioners". Don't you know a damn thing about wikipedia guidelines?--PCPP (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, that's the pot calling the kettle black. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was merely raising some concerns I had - it was not by any means meant to be a personal attack on the user.. But here is an article I came across a few minutes back.. "Sowing Confusion"... the person the article discusses is the user I mention above. I find the last paragraph of the article especially worthy of attention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a notable topic. Omido (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a news report as such. It is an article based on a number of articles from a variety of reliable sources, such as the Christian Science Monitor. If the story started with reports from the Falon Gong movement, that is hardly surprising. Stories of murder and persecution usually start with reports from those close to the victims. I do not think merging with the general article about Chinese organ harvesting is appropriate, because this article is longer and better sourced than than one. If the article wanders into too much general criticism of the policies of the Chinese government, that should be handled by editing, not deletion or merger. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - a very well-researched article, which is not 'soapbox' at all. It should not be merged either, as it deserves its own page, especially considering the research inolved. Tris2000 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of non-Epoch Times media sources to confirm the notability (and seriousness) of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-documented account of systematic torture including Amnesty International sources. In my humble opinion, only a Chinese government official could view this page as a "soapbox".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.52.230 (talk • contribs) — 24.250.52.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge Merge with the master Falun Gong entry, with the qualification the master entry should be thoroughly vetted for it's obvious pro-Falun Gong bias. Falun Gong is an authoritarian spiritual movement. Arguably a cult. It's the nature of any persecuted movement -- whether or not that movement is "good" or "bad -- to propagandize in its own behalf. Falun Gong members have, arguably and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor proven to be associated as formal representative of Falun Gong sections, been associated with Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) prior to the Tokyo subway system sarin gas incident, and other planned but, for whatever reasons, scuttled attacks. However, there are legitimate questions regarding the ethics of Falun Gong along these lines. Also, circa 2000, the SF Chron reported on Falun Gong texts purporting extraterrestrial aliens will take over the earth (no, this was not a quote from Margaret Singer [d. 2003], but the statement of the articles' writer) that have never been translated into English. Further, Falun Gong receives a great deal of support, almost surely an undue amount of latitude, in the United States and from global human rights organizations due to their direct conflict with the present Chinese government, noted for human rights abuses hardly limited to Falun Gong members. Even further, the prior repeated notices of deletion removed with discussion indicate an at least partially orchestrated campaign by Falun Gong supporters to promote this entry as fact without benefit of debate. Finally, the notion the Chinese government is running a Ishigurian organ harvesting program greatly strains credibility. It's also saying, On the one hand the Chinese government cares nothing for its people, on the other hand they have gone to great expense and effort to create and conceal a vast, organized and computerized compulsory organ harvesting program primarily to save the lives of its people, unless you believe the organs are sold outside China to wealthy buyers. And the part about injecting a lethal quantity of potassium to stop the heart when an organ is required, medically this makes no sense. A heart or live sure. But a kidney or cornea, why kill the "donor"? One can survive with without corneas or a kidney -- even without two kidneys with proper medical treatment. Why not keep these Falun Gong "donors" alive as, pardon the atrocity of the notion, "organ crops".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 464kelvin (talk • contribs) — 464kelvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Note that the account is apparently registered for the sole purpose of making this comment.Also, to be noted that adding an Afd Tag to an obviously notable topic, according to wikipedia policies, constitutes vandalism.

This person's very comment that one can survive without a "cornea", "two kidneys" and a "liver" as an avenue of disproof for the organ harvesting reports itself speaks for the completely vitiated nature of his comments. If a kidney alone costs $60000 as advertized on Chinese websites itself, it is clear who stands to gain from the murders. The statements made by this user attempting to assiciate Falun Gong with cults and stuff is 100% pure CCP propaganda. Such propagand is possible in China because media is completely closed there. Even BBC and CNN websites are and not accessible from mainland china. They characterize Falun Gong practitioners and Dalai Lama with all such labels .. including the very often used "anti-china american spy" - a term often used against both Falun Gong practitioners and Dalai Lama by chinese state controlled media - meant to incite hatred by playing on the patriotic sentiments of the chinese masses. Kilgour and Matas point out:

"According to Amnesty International, the Chinese Government adopted three strategies to crush Falun Gong: violence against practitioners who refuse to renounce their beliefs; "brainwashing" to force all known practitioners to abandon Falun Gong and renounce it, and a more effective media campaign to turn public opinion against Falun Gong."

"Incitement to hatred is not specific enough to indicate the form that persecution takes. But it promotes any and all violations of the worst sort. It is hard to imagine the allegations we have heard being true in the absence of this sort of hate propaganda. Once this sort of incitement exists, the fact that people would engage in such behaviour against the Falun Gong - harvesting their organs and killing them in the process - ceases to be implausible."

In response to this user's attempts to slander Falun Gong with this CCP-ish propaganda, - i wish to clarify for the benefit of those new to the topic that there is absolutely no "membership" or any concept of that sort in Falun Gong - Falun Gong is a system of xiu lian or cultivation practice, which anybody may self-learn on their own - All books, exercise instruction videos and lecture videos are available for free download on FalunDafa.org. Those who practice Falun Dafa may voluntarily help you learn the exercises but it is always done completely voluntarily and free of charge. I would sincerely and most humbly urge the reader to kindly go through the teachings and form his/her own understanding of why millions around the world practice Falun Gong.

Further, many studies have scientifically proven profound health benefits of Falun Gong practice - this includes a genome profiling study, done by reputed researchers, on 6 Falun Gong practitioners , - published in the JACM journal. The study concludes "enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation" and also that the practice may "regulate immunity, metabolic rate, and cell death, possibly at the transcriptional level." Falun Gong has always been highly regarded by prominent figures in the Qi Gong community - one of the world's most prominent figures in Tai Chi, Da Liu, - the Tai Chi Master who first brought Tai Chi to North America, states "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa." - Da Liu, at the age of 95. My purpose in pointing these things out is not, in any way, to proselytize but to merely clarify how vitiated CCP's propagandistic attempts to justify its torture, killing and persecution of thousands of innocents, including women , elderly and children are. It is well documented by Amnesty, HRW, Kilgour-Matas, US Congress Resolutions 188, 304, etc and many other sources how the "cult" label was coined by the CCP shortly following onset of the persecution campaign to justify its persecution of millions and it is that very propaganda tool the above user is trying to push here.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please. And your comment "Also, to be noted that adding an Afd Tag to an obviously notable topic, according to wikipedia policies, constitutes vandalism." is blalantly false per WP:Deletion policy.--PCPP (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the account was created specifically to comment on this post after a recent personal encounter with what I would term Falun Gong "recruiting materials". I was surprised by what I perceive as an extremely pro-Falun Gong bias in the two Wikipedia entries in question, but not surprised the one was flagged as in question for bias and the other flagged as marked for deletion. I didn't sign it because it was late my time, my family was nagging me to start watching a DVD with them, I didn't immediately notice HOW to sign, but it wasn't my intent to remain anonymous -- I thought in fact it would automatically sign the comment since I was logged in. Note, also, please, I did not agree the AFD entry should be outright deleted, but merged, because whether accurate or not, it's a topic with enough gravity to deserve mention in a thorough reference work. The argument for keeping a Falun Gong organ "donor" alive if possible should be self-evident in a business sense. If you've planted both corn and tomatoes on the same farmland, you don't burn the tomatoes and harvest the corn because the corn comes in first -- if that's the proper chronology; practical ag is not my area; you harvest the corn then harvest the tomatoes when they come in. In more direct terms, if a kidney brings US$60,000 and a heart brings US$250,000, and the kidney can be harvested for US$2,000 by first killing the "donor", or for $US10,000 by making best effort to keep the "donor" alive during and after the harvesting, it only makes financial sense to take the US$50,000, after cost, for the kidney, then later take the US$250,000 -- whatever it is less cost to harvest -- for a total of US$300,000 less cost from the "donor", rather than a permanent cap on that donor of $US60,000 less cost. To cap profits from a single "donor" by klling them when they are already in captivity makes no sense in "black-market" retailing of human organs. Further, surely there is indeed a "black-market" trade in human organs, but such a vast effort specific to Falun Gong practitioners, if Dilip rajeev prefers that term to "members", perpetrated by a government closely watched by West democracies and human rights organizations, in a carefully orchestrated and largely secret manner, well-run right up until the last minute when the process becomes recklessly wasteful of the "donors" when such a government certainly has the resources to conserve "donors" and at least triple profits, this strains credibility. The Chinese government is not the only entity to label Falun Gong a cult, whether or not their interest in doing so is self-serving; recognized Western experts in cults and authoritarian spiritual movements have also determined Falun Gong is a cult. As for the comments about the medical benefits of Falun Gong practice, Dilip rajeev wrote "the JACM journal" but certainly must have intended "the JCM journal". JCM is the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. JACM is a journal of computer science and would have no bona fides in such research as mentioned. As for the research itself, one study of six Falun Gong practitioners may be interesting and perhaps should lead to further study, but it is hardly definitive proof of any salubrious effects of Falun Gong practice. Furthermore, the same effects may also be achieved by regular dosing of human-engineered drugs, drugs that will still eventually kill a human being over the course of time. A cursory study of a limited group -- and rajeev does not mention the control's outcome, if there was indeed a control -- over a relatively brief period of time, again, it's interesting but goes nowhere in proving these claims. All the government and human rights groups mentioned in rajeev's comment are highly susceptible to any and all claims of atrocious human rights violations by the Chinese government. I'll assume rajeev's comments about Wikipedia's policy on AFD tags and vandalism were a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, not an attempt to impugn my credibility or intent; therefore I'll make no further remarks on that point. I do however suggest that in the interest of identifying possible bias, all further commenters to this AFD state whether or not they are practitioners of Falun Gong/Falun Dafa or are supporters of the present Chinese state and its policies. I am neither. 464kelvin (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)— 464kelvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment The "JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE" cited by editor Dilip is neither notable nor authorative. Another telling fact is one of its author, FLG practitioner Lily Feng, has died from cancer. Whatever "benefit" she claims doesn't seem to have helped her.

But that's beside the point. Multiple editors have not objected to the POV pushing by certain editors. Dilip please stop removing the POV flag. :::Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comment(s). Just some more publicly verifiable evidence for you to ponder over. An archived Chinese transplant Website ( one of the websites referred to by Kilgour and Matas in their reports) says:

"If you send your personal data to this center by e-mail or fax and accept the necessary body examination in Shenyang , China in order to assure a suitable donor, it may take only one month to receive a liver transplantation , the maximum waiting time being two months. As for the kidney transplantation , it may take one week to find a suitable donor,the maximum time being one month. Although the procedure to select a donor is very strict,, the transplant operation will be terminated if the doctor discovers that there is something wrong with the donor's organ . If this happens, the patient will have the option to be offered another organ donor and have the operation again in one week."[40]

To be noted that other countries have a wait time of over 5 years for an adult kidney. Here you are offered another organ if the first one fails in less than a week. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a journal of high reputation in the field, published by Mary Ann Liebert. I have linked the research paper, and you may read through for yourself. Wikipedia itself characterizes the JACM as among the "important or pioneering periodicals" published by Mary Ann Liebert.[41]

Further, your style of comparing human beings to corns and potatoes, and your talk about the "business" strategy of keeping humans alive to "crop" organs is, to put mildly, extremely shocking. Still .. try to consider that organ harvesting by the CCP from prisoners is a well documented fact ( by Amnesty, U.S. Executive Congressional Committee reports, and even by public admissions made by the chinese authorities themselves). According to a 2006 Congressional Executive Commission report, Huang Jiefu, China's Vice Minister of Health, had indicated in July of 2005 that as high as 95% of organ transplants in China derive from execution. The report states that circa 65% of "capital offenses" in China are for nonviolent "crime".(Ref:Congressional Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2006). I would also urge you to read the KM reports in its entirety.

I most humbly request the admins here to kindly look into the nature of edits being made by "PCPP", "Bobby Fletcher" etc. PCPP had, a few weeks back, moved the article "Persecution of Falun Gong" to "Falun Gong in People's Republic of China" (the vandalistic edit was quickly reverted by other editors). Bobby fletcher keeps adding a POV tag to the well written, well researched and objective article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China. He adds the tag repeatedly with no consensus and the tag was removed by other editors before. He keeps re-introducing it while making baseless accusations on others. Among other disruptive edits made by the user recently on the same article include the one here. I know this discussion isnt pertinent to this page but such disruptive edits make it very hard to work on the article. Kindly look into the issue.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XD coming from someone who does nothing but edit warring on FLG articles and has been blocked 3 times. Just because you think it's "well written, well researched and objective", doesn't make it so, and doesn't automatically exclude all others from disputing it. Any editor has the right to add the POV tag if he disputes the content, there is no need to gain consensus especially from cabals.--PCPP (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute right for one editor to keep a POV tag on an article if the consensus on the talk page does not support it. Edison (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that the person I mention in my post above is the person the article here: "Sowing Confusion" discusses. I find the last paragraph in the article especially worthy of attention. Requesting admins to kindly look into the matter.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaurus (rapper)

Unable to locate any non-trivial third party publications about "TheSaurus" the rapper. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC created by a WP:SPA, possible WP:COI. Only sources are to the homepages of two websites that aren't reliable sources. Links to his MySpace. This seems to be a case of someone using Wikipedia as a social networking site Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of evidence of WP:N requirements. This article from Soundslam turned up in a Google News archive search, but it's not clearly a reliable source and it's just a brief mention. I was unable to find anything in a library database of newspaper articles. Winning the World Rap Championships certainly sounds notable—yet it does not appear to have been reported in mainstream media. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was not displayed due to template errors. It is now completely listed. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet biographical guidelines for inclusion, fails WP:MUSIC as well. RFerreira (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Side of the Looking Glass

This article is about an announced project, so there is no guarantee an actual film will result. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. As seen at the film's IMDb page, the majority of the cast is merely rumored. No issue with recreation if production is shown to have begun. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the plot is a carbon copy of the imdb plot so that would need to be removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed; looks like it came from Baseline StudioSystems and IMDb didn't bother to cite where it came from. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - see below — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was a badly formed AfD, closed as follows

The result was delete. - Philippe 04:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album)

Truth_(Keyshia_Cole_album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Violates WP:CRYSTAL; after Google-ing, the only link I could find to it was the Keyshia Cole Wikipedia article, where it is also unsourced. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also this needs a separate AFD page. Hold on... Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false," is exactly wrong. WP:V. Pop Secret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Pop Secret --T-rex 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not in the official SI units, and the stuff was made up. I've already proven to Veraladeramanera that non-usage is indeed the case, as they are indeed not part of the SI listing. See the related AFDs for my comment that I am not bothering to duplicate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Child Study Center

Center is far from Noteable - fact that Hilary Clinton was once there might be notability if it was verified. Also, has been a stub since August 2006 without further editing. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 06:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also think that it is important to mention that the AfD tag is bigger than the entire article. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkshadowmaster (talk • contribs) [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This confirms that Hillary did volunteer there as a law student. There's plenty more information available with which one could expand the article: [42], [43], [44]. Zagalejo^^^ 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article may be pathetic, but the organization itself is indeed not only notable (as illustrated by Zagalejo's links) but also noteworthy as a influential center for research and clinical contributions in its field. And Hillary did indeed work there as a student. --Orlady (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have expanded the article (a little bit). --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Now it's a nice stub. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Disagreement over whether there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bomani Armah

Musician who evidently fails WP:MUSIC and the general requirement that biographies contain at least something in the way of documentation by non-trivial third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A 1 year old article with many hits on google but almost exclusively from blog, or promotional web sites/music forums. None from reliable sources to prove his notability. Artene50 (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in RS found.[45][46][47][48] --Groggy Dice T | C 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Read a Book~~. Delete for now since Read a Book doesn't have an article yet. By the non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, Armah appears to be getting virtally all his coverage as a result of Read a Book; thus Armah is currently a "one trick pony" per WP:BLP1E. At present, it is premature to have an article about Armah... but that could change once there are multiple independent articles about him and not necessarily about Read a Book. B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if the article is deleted, then its contents wouldn't be available to someone writing an article on the song. To delete the article and hope that someone will write an article on "Read a Book" from scratch at some unknown point in the future doesn't make sense to me. Also, information about the song would be less out of place in a bio, than bio information would be in an article about the song. However, I also disagree that this is a BLP1E case. Armah was well-established on the DC scene before becoming the subject of national controversy, and he also got some attention for his "white side" Obama commentary. Plus, he is not a media victim; a musician who gets national attention for one of his videos is doing his job. --Groggy Dice T | C 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, beyond the local scene, you have it backward: his primary fame comes from the song, not the other way around. Regarding "if the article is deleted, then its contents wouldn't be available to someone writing an article on the song": the obvious solution to that stated problem is to write a sourced article about the song now. But without additional evidence (in reliable sources in the form of non-trivial coverage (of which only one of the four links supplied above can be described as two were of the song and at least one mention him trivially), it does indeed seem to be a "one trick pony" per WP:BLP. Right now there might be enough for a decent article on the song, but not the bio mentioned here - is there any additional nontrivial WP:RS coverage on him without focusing on "Read a Book"? If the answer is "yes," it should be incorporated into the article pronto. But for now I must join the delete choir. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep; we seem to have enough source.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Plenty of sources, verifiability isn't the issue here. Nor is notability, because plenty of people in major newspapers wrote about his works and writings. I don't agree that the coverage here is trivial. One could argue that Works of Bomani Arman or Writings of Bomani Arman would be more notable then Bomani Arman himself, but does it make sense to have articles like those, but not one on Arman? I think not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizniz

Delete nn musician Mayalld (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me or any other admin if you require a copy to transwiki to the Warhammer wiki. Neıl 龱 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Marine Scouts

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary; does not offer, and a cursory google search does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikia:Warhammer40k:Space Marine Scouts. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Part of a wall-garden of non-notable in-universe articles, impossible to save, that either need to be deleted or redirected. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual unit in a tabletop game. No reliable independant sources, and unlikely to be. -- saberwyn 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Delete Merge with main article before deletion. AlmondManTwo (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that we cannot merge and delete per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real world notability --T-rex 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe article about subject that fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acknowledges itself as fictional element, meets notability guidelines for same. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete White dwarf is an organ of games workshop, the producer of the game and these miniatures. It simply isn't an appropriate source from which to draw imputed notability. If and when sources independent from the game producer are revealed, we can discuss whether the material in those sources allows the article to meet WP:FICT, WP:N. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I endorse the complete depopulation of Category:Warhammer 40,000, leaving only those articles that exhibit individual notability. Nominating those hundreds of pages will be a lot of work that I cannot do myself, because as a player, I'm biased. All or nothing. Piecemeal deletions are right out. All I want is a fair go and consistent application of Wikipedia policy. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first instinct was to majorly compress and merge with the Space Marines article, but that looks to be a complete mess too. If anyone is wondering exactly what Wikipedians mean when they use the term "fancruft", this is exhibit A, right here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lonny Fame and the Belltones

This can and should be speedy deleted as a hoax, vandalism, and obviously non-notable band (due to it not existing) but I want the administrator who closes this to know they have the collective support of the community when they do so. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice, salt the earth and block the original poster plus his socks. I'd hoped it wouln't come to this, but since it has, well, you know what I think. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Enigma ^message 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4. --Stormie (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmayogi

AfDs for this article:

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Mayalld (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 07:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Bendigo

Delete nn music festival Mayalld (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

If 'music festival' is the only gripe, then other pages up for deletion should include Big Day Out, Splendour in the Grass, St Jerome's Laneway Festival and in particular Playground Weekender Festival which also began in 2007.
The event was mentioned from another article before being created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.148.116 (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of nontrivial coverage by reliable sources (there were trivial mentions in a couple of government sites). To the IP who posted above: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING are not valid arguments for either keeping or deleting. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Newcastle, Australia. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Newcastle Chamber Choir

Delete as article about nn choir ~~that actually appears to be about a piece of music by Elgar.~~Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mayalid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodopolis (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elgar piece was briefly used as a template for which I apologise. The article now consists of information on the choir which is internationally recognised and will be featured on national television in the next few days.

Comment struck the criticism of the content, but this is still a nn organisation. Mayalld (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, also as a student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if notability increases - appearing on national television should be well below the level at which choirs are kept. There are quite simply far too many opportunities for far too many choirs to be broadcast. However, the release of noteworthy recordings would be far more convincing. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 13:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Choir won ABC Choir of the year competition in 2006, a national competition in Australia, and was broadcast on Australia's leading national classical music station, ABC Classic FM. They also have a recording on ABC Classics, a major classical music label in Australia, plus four other recordings. I think this satisfies the notability clause.--Jackevans83 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge anything relevant to University of Newcastle, Australia There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the choir and that would seem to be the most appropriate place. Montco (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&Comment:The source we have is enough; either R# or merge is fine enough.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no one other then the nominator recommends it for deletion. — _Maggot^Syn 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daffy Rents

Delete nn cartoon Mayalld (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd describe any Looney Tunes episode as notable: they're pretty much the gold standard of animated cartooning. The problem here is that the original article creator doesn't know how to turn off his cap lock key, and he cuts-and-pastes copyvios as articles. I've deleted the obvious copyvios and Dlohcierekim has been fixing up the others. I'd have no objection to the re-creation of the other episodes in an appropriate form, either. Acroterion _(talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is sufficient media coverage here. The links I added help establish that. Any Daffy Duck cartoon is sufficiently notable for coverage here. At worst, it should be merged and redirected to List of Daffy Duck cartoons. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion puts it quite well. Dloh cierekim 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait, there is a constant struggle on WP concerning issues of television episode notability, yet a six minute Daffy Duck short is inherently notable? He's probably my favorite cartoon character, but I'm not sure I can agree with that. Sure, sources are going to mention it, but is there actual content that can make up a real article out there? I'd lean towards a merge, but I don't have enough conviction in any direction to voice it as a vote yet. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daffy passed WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all theatrical Warner Brothers cartoons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid rationale has been given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rationale is that Whilst the series of cartoons is notable, individual cartoons are not. Mayalld (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sounds like a reason to merge rather than delete. Granted, collective notability is stronger than individual notability. If we leave out the plot summaries, would fill out List of Daffy Duck cartoons nicely. If we add plot summaries, it would be too unwieldy in the List. It's not the size of your article or the length of your subject that counts. Ya go with what ya got. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete as the article is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Astroduck

Delete nn cartoon Mayalld (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd describe any Looney Tunes episode as notable: they're pretty much the gold standard of animated cartooning. The problem here is that the original article creator doesn't know how to turn off his cap lock key, and he cuts-and-pastes copyvios as articles. I've deleted the obvious copyvios and Dlohcierekim has been fixing up the others. I'd have no objection to the re-creation of the other episodes in an appropriate form, either. Acroterion _(talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, it should be listed at List of Daffy Duck cartoons. Secondly, I think that it is notable enough for its own aricle, but just needs to be expanded upon. When I first offered it up as speedy deletion it looked like spam to me. --Pinkkeith (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Appears to have alternative title, "Astro Duck". Description in sources seems the same. Dloh cierekim 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above fine arguments I think there is sufficient media coverage here. The links I added help establish that. Any Daffy Duck cartoon is sufficiently notable for coverage here. At worst, it should be merged and redirected to List of Daffy Duck cartoons. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly, this and Go Go Amigo are among the worst of the Daffy Duck cartoons. Still, Daffy Duck is notable and we don't judge articles based on the artistic quality of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm for keeping all the theatrically-released Warner Brothers cartoons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid rationale for deletion has been given. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete and article is indeed notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Go Amigo

Delete nn cartoon Mayalld (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd describe any Looney Tunes episode as notable: they're pretty much the gold standard of animated cartooning. The problem here is that the original article creator doesn't know how to turn off his cap lock key, and he cuts-and-pastes copyvios as articles. I've deleted the obvious copyvios and Dlohcierekim has been fixing up the others (he hasn't gotten to this one yet). I'd have no objection to the re-creation of the other episodes in an appropriate form, either. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Acroterion's arguments I think there is sufficient media coverage here. The links I added help establish that. Any Daffy Duck cartoon is sufficiently notable for coverage here. At worst, it should be merged and redirected to List of Daffy Duck cartoons. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because Daffy Duck is notable. This is, arguably, the worst Daffy cartoon of them all -- but, of course, there is no category yet for WP:NoLousyCartoons. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Needs to be wikified, categorized, referenced and labled as a stub, but I do believe that it is notable. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Acroterion, Looney Tunes episodes should be presumed notable. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid rationale for deletion has been given. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft

Non-notable article about homosexual employees of microsoft. Article only has two sources. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 05:57:28 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by two national news outlets evinces better notability than probably 95% of the articles on wikipedia. The organization has clearly had an extramural impact, which should allay any lingering concerns about notability. Pop Secret (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Microsoft has been an example how an employer should treat LGBT people and has been covered by the press and examined by other companies and organizations. It is a very notable group. --Pinkkeith (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Microsoft's involvement with Washington state's LGBT potential laws made national news and it could all be tied to their LGBT group. Article should be improved, not deleted. Banje boi 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant news story involving one of the most important companies in the world. It is hard not to assume there is more coverage of this subject beyond two magazines. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. The issue actually came up in discussion today, and I was glad to find a reference at Wikipedia, with links, that helped me correct misunderstandings in both my own and the other person's knowledge of the facts surrounding this event. So it was helpful in a factual way, not a soap-boxy one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.14.195 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 07:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galvin Communications

I declined the speedy, but it has no independent sourcing, and most of the Ghits I found were either articles from Patrick Galvin or directory listings. On the other hand, there were enough articles that I wanted to give this a bit more time to find evidence of notability. Neutral SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's another public relations and word of mouth marketing company, and guess what? They think a Wikipedia article will help their business. No showing of business notability shown, and with articles like these, nobody needs bother to look. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Self published advitorial newpaper reference and self published content on their own website are their only references~~. Existing article does not meet reliability or notability policy, lacks references for facts cited - needs a complete rewrite by non-marketing person - Sorry, Delete - GaryECampbell (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry... I just like writing about companies that I are a noteworthy. But I guess I should have done my homework better before posting it. Ok, I did more research and added links that hopefully meet the notability guidelines. --Peter0211 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article by a single purpose account that looks like a promotional perspectus rather than an encyclopedia article. (NOTE: if the majority of the article is mentioning the composition of the company's leadership instead of the corporate structure, activities, and notability, chances are very good that it would fail WP:CORP). Wikipedia is not a promotional tool - it can only reflect the notability of the subject, provided it has sufficient notability. B.Wind (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight RPG

Obvious nonencyclopedic content. A second contributor removed CSD tag. Site fails WP:NOTE. Livitup (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via WP:CSD#G11. I'm restoring the CSD tag and warning the second contributor; this person has only contributed to this article and may be a SPA. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speeded again per CSD A7. And protected. --Stormie (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hessam hessamyan

Non notable person, this is speedyable, however it's been speedied three times...bringing here for opinion and salting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fighter (film)

Fails WP:NFF as it has not yet started filming. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since this film has not begun production and is not guaranteed to. According to Variety, this project has been around since March 2007. Instead of this project, Aronofsky pursued The Wrestler. According to MTV recently, Wahlberg said that shooting was to begin this October. Variety had indicated filming was to begin in summer of 2007. There is no certainty in planning production; any number of issues could interfere, such as scripting issues, budget issues, or the reported actors' strike. (The writers' strike affected several films that were in development or pre-production.) If filming begins in October after all, a full-fledged film article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability as there is no indication this will even be made. Steve ^{T • C} 19:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable by me ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this film currently fails notability and there is no evidence that it will finish production. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or begin it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete and easily passes notability per WP:MUSIC. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zyklon (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could you please explain how? I see no problems with this article. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF!!!!! 3 albums on a notable label, interviews in notable magazines, and that was only going through the article for 10 seconds. I'm assuming this is a good faith nomination, and I'd ask the creator to withdraw the AfD nomination. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear pass of WP:Music #5. Vickser (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article needs huge improvement, e.g. proper references to reliable sources (not fansites, EM, etc.). If this can be done, the article should be ok to stay - probably passes WP:MUSIC on releases, but very lacking in evidence of significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC with three albums on Candlelight. There is stacks of independent coverage in print-copy metal magazines such as Terrorizer, Zero Tolerance etc. References should be trivial to find. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Fazli Azeem

Notability is asserted, but I'm not sure any of the sources are reliable. Weak delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, serious conflict of interest is apparent as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I was just getting around to nominating this one per the WP:NOTE, WP:RS, and WP:COI concerns. S. Dean Jameson 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article reads like spam. Artene50 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Not closing this as no-consensus as most of the objections to its existence prior to the 5th appear to have been adequately addressed and rendered moot. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skiing in Lebanon

This is the virtually same article that was deleted less than 24 hours ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ski Lebanon. It just had some fixes so that the copyvio from this site wasn't so blatant. Damiens.rf 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this page is also up for WP:CSD#G4; I'm not sure if this is eligible for it however, considering the last AfD ended in a speedy and non-admin closure. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No opinion on the speedy as I didn't see the original. That said, there is nothing notable about the "topic", whatever it might be. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the G4, Mendaliv is correct, this isn't eligible as the previous AFD never ran its course. Let this run its course. I recommend someone try to find sources to help ascertain the notability of this particular pasttime in this particular country. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speaking as the previous tagger, the previously deleted article was an exact copy and paste job from that skileb page, a copyrighted website, and thus unambiguously satisfied the "blatant copyright infringement" criterion of CSD G12, warranting deletion on sight by an administrator. In terms of this nomination, I agree with Keeper. No prejudice against a) letting this running its course and b) pursual of sources being added to assert notability - this reveals something that this article could be a part of perhaps? WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that the current article is just a small modification of the text at the original copyvio site. --Damiens.rf 23:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that many info is from website does only confirm reliability. As per notability, what is not notable for somebody in Kansas City might be notable in the Middle East and I think it is intersesting for everybody on earth to know that one can ski in the Middle-East. I need to add that following the editing conflict on this article with Damiens.fr, this editor has tagged and requested deletion of many article with links to this one. I believe this is unfair and is enough to withdraw any credibility from this editor. Lebprofiler (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Lebprofiler[reply]

Comment: Please bear in mind that what an editor from Kansas City finds notable against what an editor from the Middle East finds notable isn't really a determining factor - reliable, verifiable, independent coverage is. WilliamH (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's pretty clearly a notable subject. I quickly found two sources, which I've cited: substantial coverage in reliable third party sources of the subject at hand, namely the overall practice of skiing in the country of Lebanon. Certainly there are many more sources out of which a proper article can be built. If there is a copyvio here that's a separate matter and the offending material should be deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have found sources for the (uncontroversial) fact that Skiing exists in Lebanon. Unless we manage to find sources for the History section (the bulk of the article), we should consider merging the reliable information (just one paragraph?) to Lebanon or some other article. --Damiens.rf 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are more than that, they show that skiing in Lebanon is a distinct phenomenon on its own that is worth discussing overall as a topic narrower than Lebanon or skiing overall, and broader than simply one or another of the six resorts. We do have some comparable articles about other jurisdictions, e.g. List of ski areas and resorts in the United States, List of ski areas and resorts in Switzerland, List of Colorado ski resorts, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Damiens.rf started this issue by claiming it was blantant copyright which is not very true because the info in the site http://www.skimzaar.com/faraya-mzaar/ski-resort/history-skiing.asp is of public knowledge. What is funny is that it is all about history, whle Damiens.rf now claims he has issues with reliability of history. mr Damiens.rf, you have vandalized articles related to this topic and some individuals associated. I dont know who you are, but I think you are the problem. So let us delete thsi one and all the others you have tagged for deletion. Anyway, people can find the info about the topic and the individuas all over the internet, if they need soe references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchodonozor (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, copyright violation would be the use of copied text, not the reproduction of information found elsewhere. The question with copyrights is not whether the information is publicly available, but instead whether a large section of text is copied word-for-word or with only slight modification. Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Damiens.rf claims history has no reference. Please compare with text found on the web(text below). We are a group lebanese skier trying to have this topic on wikipedia but User:Damiens.rf does not like it for some reason (We think we know but have no proof)so he is tagging and tagging related article and probably creating vandal activity under fake users to confuse and help his case for deletion.

here is the text

1935

In 1935, French entrepreneurs established the first ski school at Le Grand Cèdre Hotel in the Cedars forest in northern Lebanon.

In 1937, the school moved to a high mountain barrack and became known as the Military ski School.

At this time, the first ski competitions began taking place in Lebanon in Dahr-El-Baidar, Laqlouq, Kneisseh and the Cedars.

The renowned clubs of the day were the ENB, Alpes Françaises, Lebanese Danafill and the Becharreh Team.

In 1947, Lebanese skiers went abroad to compete in international competitions for the first time. Michel Samen raised the Lebanese flag at the championship in Chamonix. In 1948, the Lebanese team, consisting of Mounir Itani, Jean Samen, Abdelwahab El Rifai and Ibrahim Geagea, competed in the Winter Olympics at Saint Moritz.

1961

1961 saw the official establishment of the Lebanese Ski Federation under President Dr. Emile Riachi.

This led to the prevalence of the Lebanese skiers on the world stage: Innsbruck (1964), Greece (1967), and Olympic Games in Sapporo (1972), Innsbruck (1976), Lake Placid (1980), Schaladming (1984), Calgary (1988) and Albertville (1992).

Furthermore, in 1967 and 1972 the federation cooperated with the Lebanese Army to lead them to victory in the World Championship of Military Ski (WCMS).

A highlight of the Lebanese skiing history also took place in 1967 when the 26th annual International Ski Federation (ISF) conference was held in Beirut. It was then the idea was born to host the World Ski Championship and bring the best skiers in the world to Lebanon.

The successful event took place yearly until the was began in 1975. Nevertheless, during the Lebanese war, the Lebanese Ski Federation continued to organize competitions and send skiers abroad. The Lebanese Championship eventually resumed after 16 years of disruption —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral as regards notability at the moment but I can see no issue with a copyvio from the site the nominator mentioned (i.e. this) Nk.sheridan Talk 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I see a copyvio issue from this. It is obviously used as a source for the history section and is given as such in the article but there is no copy and paste. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, I swear to god skiing in Lebanon is a very nice topic, with a very interesting history. Now if you think it is not notable enough, forget about an article in Wikipedia, we just thought the topic had its place in an electronic encyclopedia. Alternatively, come to Lebanon if you like skiing. It is very nice. CHECK THIS SITE:

http://www.bootsnall.com/adventures/articles/06-09/skiing-in-lebanon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current article lacks reliable and independent sources. I am concerned that some people want to turn this into an ad for skiing in Lebanon. Michellecrisp (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michelle, this is exactly what you are doing when you contribute in articles about Sidney and Australian people and topic as you have done a lot. Is it advertising? What do "fans" have as an advantage? I dont own a resort or sell hod dogs on the slopes of Lebanese resorts. I just like skiing and my country. Just as you. Who better than you can talk and contribute about Australia in an Encyclopedia?

Lebprofiler (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Lebprofiler[reply]

the fact you are citing websites that are essentially adverts and do not meet the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. None of my edits on any topic have I added refs that are essentially advertising. Anyone can edit or comment any article on Wikipedia, see WP:OWN, "fans" must exercise WP:NPOV or risk being seen as having a conflict of interest. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detele As the creator of this page I request it is deleted. I dont think there is anything positive with this. I have had argument with people who are anonymous and they post articles saying I am doing personal attacks ! How can you attack somebody who is virtual. The only user that gives her name was Michelle and I tried to argue politely. I respect her answer and I will stop arguing about it. There is a real issue here. It is defamation. So I suggest this article and the other one I created are deleted immediately. Let us en this, pleaaaase ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to the Lebanon article. Notability not established as per lack of reliable sources.Nk.sheridan Talk 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I stated on User:Lebprofilers talkpage (this diff) notable Lebanese ski resorts could instead have stubs created for each of them. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is in great need of clean up, but the subject itself is noteworthy.(AFP article from 2007) Lebanon appears to have a Ski Federation[49], which lists quite a few ski competitions (notably Lebanese national championships and a couple Asian childrens/junior alpine championships). The articles claim that there are six ski resorts in the country also seems accurate. ← George^[talk] 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ski Federation's website appears to have a much more in depth history, that could prove a vital source to improving this article: Google's translation of the French site. ← George^[talk] 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Got 'Im

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Almost Got 'Im

Robin's Reckoning

The Man Who Killed Batman

Beware the Gray Ghost

Perchance to Dream (Batman: The Animated Series)

Two-Face (Batman: The Animated Series)

These episode articles don't have info on how the episode was received by critics and real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element. So it fails WP:EPISODE Schuym1 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Man Who Killed Batman had been redirected to the episode list between September 2007 and January 2008 for nonnotability, but it was then resurrected and shortly edit-warred about (result: redirect), and was then resurrected again in April with the words "Notable episode". The other articles seem to have similar page histories. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robin's Reckoning. It got an Emmy, for God's sake; if that doesn't make a television episode notable for its own article I don't know what does. Neutral on the others. JuJube (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable television/super hero topics with importance in the real world). JuJube makes an excellent point about award winning shows being notable, but even with all the episodes there should be sufficient reviews of them that can be used to cover their reception or interviews with the voice actors and directors for additional non-plot coverage. Look at such reviews as this or this, which comment on specific episodes. One can use such sources to create reception sections for each of the episode article under discussion with comments from multiple reliable independent sources. And even in a worst case scenario they could be redirected as Sgeureka notes above so that outright deletion does not really make sense. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - these are fully written episode articles which do go well beyond a plot summery. Also per User:JuJube --T-rex 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The result is keep so why isn't it ended? Schuym1 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back Sabbath

Appears to fail notability test for music. No independent coverage, major releases or tours which I can verify. Fightindaman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't even claim to be anything other than a cover band --T-rex 03:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Gibb ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. quickly rm this bunk. Libs (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut (project)

Project is not notable; searched for any mention on Google News, Scholar, and Books under the full name "Correct-by-Construction Workbench for Design and Verification of Embedded Systems" since "Coconut" would be impossible. Found nothing. If sourcing can be produced, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure about the notability, but some sources are [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], but I'll agree that finding them is a bit of a pain - can't find much from the European Union website :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reliable source that goes over the project in a fair amount of detail. This information should be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia since it is a project lead by a a very notable organization, and its verifiable, so there's no reason not to include this information somewhere. So for now, I say we should keep this. However, if this can smoothly be placed in another article, then we should do that.--SJP (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Added notability statement to the article, along with in line cite and references. Should be enough to establish Notability. However, the article does need expansion and a rework. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I completely agree with the two viewpoints presented above. There are verifyable sources and the [EU] projects are in my opinion also of interest to the general public. --Georg Hofferek (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources provided are independent of the project. In fact, they are the same press release. You cannot cite your own press release and claim that is a reliable source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry; you are talking two different issues here. First, I believe Reuters is independent of the source, even including Business Wire. Second, if it is carried by independent – 3rd party – verifiable – reliable sources, how would that not been verification of Notability? Third, the claim “...Best Proposal for Embedded Systems by the EU's Seventh Framework Programme”, is a claim to Notability which is an acceptable criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and proven by the reference. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the "sources" have identical text. All the sources were written by somebody in the organization and released to the press. They are press releases. Press releases are not independent of the organization, and are therefore not reliable sources. As for the idea that the project is a "best proposal", how do we know it was not the only proposal? Being a proposal means, in my mind, that this project isn't actually producing anything. Can you point to a single scientific paper, news report (that isn't the one press release) or anything else about this project? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phlegm Rooster, do you mind giving some links that prove this was written by the same guy? Also, so what if it only has one source? Though more is preferable, the number of sources doesn't matter. The amount of information they contain is what actually counts.--SJP (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text reads identically, so they are authored by the same person or committee. They are to be found on the typical press release websites. I consider that sufficient evidence. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for relisting: while it is conventional to close AFD discussions with a unanimous consensus for retention of an article as "keep", the editors supporting the retention of this article have relied on claims that republications of the same press release establish the notability of this project, which I find to be unpersuasive. However, note that this article may be retained, even in the absence of citations of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish the project's notability, if it is reasonably believed that such sources exist. John254 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the previous sources provided were republications of the same press release, [55] and [56] clearly constitute original (and significant) coverage in third-party reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of this project's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Thanks, John254, for finding those sources. My main concern was that press releases alone cannot be enough to keep an article. The third party sources do a much better job explaining what Coconut is supposed to do, even the one I read translated by Google. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salarakkaat (album)

This album is non-notable. It didn't chart, received very little attention and sold few copies. There's not even an article about this on finnish wikipedia. Fails WP:MUSIC. Reverend X (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Schuym1 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Several Times (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above (not notable) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Luck 13 Riot Extravaganza

Seemingly non-notable band. Prod removed by creator without comment. tomasz. 13:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are very known in hardcore music, also they are mentioned in a band article that a member was a part of and on the hellfest article. sorry i didn't comment before nosawa. 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to prove how well known they are; also being known in hardcore might still not equate to being notable on the whole. Also the link in the Hellfest article is just a line-up list. tomasz. 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks sources to verify its notability, so it probably should be deleted unless they can be found. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and nontrivial coverage by reliable sources is lacking. Most of the releases seem self-published. B.Wind (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is a separate process which can be achieved through being bold orthrough discussion on the talk page. This article does not fail WP:MUSIC at all and has a lot of potential, as could be seen with even a cursory Google search. Fram (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter (album)

Delete nn album, consisting of little more than a trackist that could easily be incorporated into the article about the group, per WP:MUS Mayalld (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be by a notable band on a notable label. There are tons of album pages like this, and consensus is that albums by notable acts usually warrant their own pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - album sold very well according to the Within Temptation article. --T-rex 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alblum articles are generally stubs, and the article is notable Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:58:58 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Should any editor wish to have the content to merge to another article as suggested below, let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeDi

Contested prod. Article does not list any reliable sources and appears to be a about a non-notable application. TN‑X-Man 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N an article must have independent reliable sources to show notability. It currently has no sources at all, and a quick Google search did not show anything. swa q 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I punched NeDi into google and 6 of the 12 results on the first page were for this software package. I think the problem is that google learns what you are interested in and serves up results accordingly, and since you are not much involved in network monitoring tools google does not give you results for those tools. Here is one of the paid google links that came up when I punched NeDi into google: http://www.groundworkopensource.com/community/open-source/nedi.html?ldsrc=AD-Google&gclid=CImU7IPGl5QCFRZjnAodNloSfg.
Could you QUANTIFY for me how notable a subject has to be for it to be deemed worthy of a wikipedia page?Galapagos42 (talk)

Notability guidelines are here: WP:N. Number of hits in a search engine does not determine notability, significant coverage in independent reliable sources does. swa q 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asserted that "a quick Google search did not show anything" I felt it necessary to rebut that assertion. Is it really the case that google searches can be used as evidence to disqualify notability but not as evidence to qualify notablity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.135.102 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hits in a Google search does not establish notability. But if you can find independent reliable sources that give significant coverage then those can prove notability. I did not do a thorough search, but in my quick skim of the search results did not notice any sources that fit this criteria. swa q 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had created the article as a stub, would I have not been threatened with deletion? Why is it that this article is not being deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_(supercomputer)? Galapagos42 (talk)

Whether or not the article is a stub has little bearing on whether it is discussed for deletion. It is possible no one has noticed the article you mentioned yet. It will have to be examined on its own merits. Inclusion can not be determined by the existence of another article on Wikipedia, see: WP:OTHERSTUFF. swa q 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many independent reliable sources must I cite before you will accept this topic as notable? Galapagos42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally two is considered enough, assuming the subject is not mentioned in passing. swa q 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to create Network discovery and merge this there since the sources I found talk about network discovery in general (here and two here) but not NeDi specifically. Nifboy (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to fundamental and unsolvable issues with both verifiability and notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cisco is notable, and the article is about software. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:55:41 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - improvement required - The InfoWorld reference is notable and reliable. I believe the article (and network discovery concepts) are an important subject, I cannot find anything relevant on Wikipedia. However, the article needs to expand and elaborate more on their unique apsect relating to network discovery, facts should be cited with 3rd party references. GaryECampbell (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to questions about nontrivial coverage by reliable sources, it is hard to ascertain by reading the article what makes the subject notable and set it apart from other, (possibly) similar software packages. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite so that someone outside the industry could get a glimmer as to what the writer is actually discussing in his/her discussion as it seems to be overloaded with undefined jargon (the latter, however, is not a reason for deletion by itself). B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of infos is natable; this page is just a stub, and they can still be expand.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lewis (radio host)

Article lacks 3rd party sources supporting the notability of this radio personality. No mention of any awards, no mention of syndication of the radio show. Google news search brings up a number of articles, but they are all local. Is this person notable? Rtphokie (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do whatever you want, I don't care. I think he is notable, but it's Wikipedia, what does it matter? I've got better things to do than to go find some references to make the article passable. ----PSzalapski (talk) 10:02, June 27, 2008
Weak Keep IF his role as Limbaugh's most often-used fill-in can be sourced, I can live with that establishing notability, given the amount of affiliates that carry the show. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false statement - see below. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a lack of sources doesn't mean non-notable, it means lazy editors. As for the nominator, there are a multitude of other sources of information on earth besides Google News, it isn't a very good test of notability, and certainly not a test that should be used when determining whether or not to AFD an article. Pull your head out of your ass. 208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO requires sources, pure and simple. Google news is one place to look and yes it's not the only place but it is a good indication of how widely covered a topic is in newspapers and other news sources of many sizes. Still remember. it's the responsibility of the editors who create the articles and add the information to properly source the articles. Please read WP:BIO and WP:BURDEN. If the article can be properly sourced and the consensus is that this person is notable, the I'm all for keeping the article but neither has happened yet.--Rtphokie (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of looking for sources you want to delete the article? What part of WP:N do local news sources fail? There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of sourceless articles on this website, that doesn't make them non-notable. You said yourself Google news brings up results, so what about those results make this individual non-notable? Your argument is weak at best and specious at worst. I am sorry I told you to pull your head out of a certain part of your anatomy but this kind of premature deletion attempt does nothing to improve this website. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I do not like bloviating radio talkers on either end of the political spectrum, but the papers in the towns where his show has been based have had a few articles about him per Google News search[57]. (Some of the stories are about an entertainer of the same name). Edison (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw those as well, aren't they all local to wherever Lewis was working at the time? We've got to be careful with DJ's given the transient nature of their careers, what appears as widespread coverage is actually just localized at different periods in their careers.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, all the newspaper articles seem to be from towns where he was locally on the air . But I do not see what part of WP:N that falls short of, as long as the papers are independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. Is there a new requirement that the coverage be in national sources? Edison (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete The article has a number of problems, such as it must cite references on such candidate statements as the involvement in the "Tax Cut Coalition" or the 1990 run for political office. For establishing notability it would help to establish that this person is a Limbaugh stand-in with a link to a new article or deep-link in the Limbaugh site. It is not the burden of the readers to seek out those references, and this reader could not find any in a brief, casual search, sort of making the claim as proof of notability as suspect. The link to the KTLK site does establish this is a valid host of a local radio show, in itself barely making him notable, in that it's lacking the "significant coverage" criteria. Additional cited sources may be cause for re-consideration. Gych (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is unsourced with a handful of questionable assertions (the claim that Lewis has filled in for Limbaugh most often is patently false as Tony Snow, Bob Dornan, and Walter E. Williams each would fill in for Limbaugh for a week (or weeks) at a time). Essentially, the subject has local notoriety, and there seems to be a lack of nontrivial coverage by reliable sources demonstrating more than that. Regarding a comment written above: it is not a burden for readers to seek out references for an article - the burden falls on the people who write the article in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note...I agree regarding the burden falling on the authors. The article is in violation of the biographical citations requirement "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately". This article is well past the "immediately" timeframe and still no citations. -Gych (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R# or find a similar article to merge. The source we have is not enough.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Fuat Sari

Non-notable artist. Part is a copyright violation but the main thing is there is no mention of him at Google News, Google Scholar (not surprising though), and some odd ones at Google books. Overall, Google doesn't show anything much other than a gallery or listings on self-described art websites. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Google "Hasan Fuat Sari" I find 1,300 results. It might be a common name though. I add in the word "sculptor" and get 114 hits, and with just the word artist get 196. Google then tells me only 70 of those hits are relevant when I click on the last page. All of these links seem to be listings in art directories where anyone can add their name. So, to the creator of this page, please state why this person is noteworthy. Have they won any internationally recognized awards of significance? I see paintings by the person selling for thousands of dollars each. Usually when you are famous your paintings sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions even. Dream Focus (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non.notable, and also sounds like advertising copy.Yobmod (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spoke too soon. Found some articles about him here and here. Still doesn't indicate much in terms of notability ~~but will work on incorporating them into the article~~. Also note that the article creator has uploaded images of the artwork as "self-made" so there might be COI here as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I want to look into the introduction first. It feels like another copyright violation as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is so badly written it would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. To much like a promotional.PB666 ^yap 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new article about Hasan Fuat Sari

I have now created a new article about Hasan Fuat Sari. I hope it will be accepted by the community. --Beraranders22 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2008 (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 Delete. Fram (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Simmons

AfDs for this article:

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I contributed to the article in the past. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This shows the bankruptcy of using two RSs for showing notability. We can call it one event, or common sense. DGG (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:MEMORIAL. Edison (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lizarraga

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ricardo Lizarraga (2nd nomination)

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I contributed to the article in the past. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the well-argued nomination; subject isn't covered for anything other than being shot, and the shooting itself doesn't seem to have gotten the in-depth coverage that would be required for me to say it's a good idea to keep it just because of the complexity of the case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:MEMORIAL. Edison (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Cursey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A. B. Cursey (2nd nomination)

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:MEMORIAL. This person is noted for only one event, being slain in the line of duty. Tragic but, no evidence is cited or found of long term WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its sad but the article has little context. If he was the first officer in the LAPD to die, it would be more notable. Artene50 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who play left handed

AfDs for this article:

Basically a list of trivia, devoid of sources. I'm curious since I'm left handed myself (I play guitar right-handed, though), and I can sort of see how this might be important in cases like Paul McCartney or Jimi Hendrix, but overall there has been no attempt to improve this article since the last AfD, and I don't really see anything notable about these musicians other than that they (possibly) play left handed. Furthermore, I can't find any sources pertaining to other musicians else than the few most notable examples such as Hendrix. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fun to flip through but unsourced and fairly arbitrary list. JJL (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. also delete List of musicians who play right handed --T-rex 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was nominated for deletion in Nov 2007, and I suggest you read the discussion there. This is not an arbitrary collection - there is an entire book written on left-handed guitarists (see the first nomination discussion). The book states that at least some left-handed players play differently because they are left-handed. Playing guitar left-handed can be a completely different thing. There are three essential ways a left-handed person may play guitar, compared to only one for right-handed people. As far as them "possibly" playing left-handed, as far as I could, I verified that each does play left-handed, and not simply a left-handed person that plays right-handed. I haven't been able to check all of the ones other editors added, though. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not and arbitrary intersection, the way "left-handed singers" would be. I've added some images to illustrate the article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For most instruments (flute, piano, etc), left-handed people play them the same way as right handed-people. That isn't the case for guitars. There are really five ways to play: (1) right-handed, (2) a right-handed instrument flipped over and picked with the left hand, making the strings backward, (3) a right-handed guitar flipped over, with the strings altered to be in the correct order for a left-handed person, (4) a true left-handed guitar (mirror image of a right-handed guitar), and (5) a guitar that is styled like a left-handed guitar but with the reversed, so they are upside down (for a lefty). Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba, you can add the word "keep" if you want to. Nominators and authors are allowed to "vote" as the rest of us are, in the sense of putting a label on their comment. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus in November was "Encyclopedic topic, lots of room for expansion", and the article has been expanded upon since then, with the addition of more context. As I've said before, if you know anything about playing the guitar, you know that most guitars are designed to be played right-handed. My understanding is that in string instruments, fingering the chords is done with one hand, and that the distinction among artists is how they play the chords with the other hand, and that it does make a difference which hand is dominant. As the article points out more clearly now, some lefties learned how to play right-handed, while others had the "odd" guitar. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, trivial list. Which hand you play an instrument with isn't very significant. Article also has few to no sources Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:51:13 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very significant for a left-handed player. Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has huge notability. The nomination confirms this and mostly just complains that no-one has worked upon the article. A blatant case of WP:SOFIXIT, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:IMPERFECT, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if it was only the guitar, I'd have had more sympathy for it. It would be a less arbitrary list. JJL (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Drums are played left-handed or right-handed too, but there is a lot less to deal with in that case. Some left-handed people play drums right-handed (e.g. Ringo Starr). Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CindeRiley/Skate-Gate

AfDs for this article:

Insecurity Guard / Quiet Riot!

The Truth Hurts / Jumping Mad

The Majestic Horse / Carnie Dearest

Going Overboard / Riley's Birthday

Halloween Spirits

These are un-notable episodes of The Replacements. For that reason, it fails WP:EPISODE Schuym1 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - per nom. Articles consist of nothing beyond an air date and a plot summery, and show no real world notability --T-rex 00:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - None of the pages show why the individual episode is notable enough for its own page.--Finalnight (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the article on the board, but not the individual board members, they will be merged into the first article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marin County Board of Supervisors

Article about a non-notable board governing an unincorporated county in north California--news searches, etc. turn up no significant, independent coverage (although they are mentioned in terms of holding hearings and in connection with Barbara Boxer).

I'm also nominating the following articles about the individuals serving on the Board:

And finally, in the interest of full disclosure I'll mention that all of these articles were created by User:SuperSuperBoi, one of the many blocked socks of User:Qrc2006 that I've dealt with in my time here (see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove). jonny-m t 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; California counties have boards of supervisors. Marin County's gets about 35,000 Google hits. The positions on these boards are elected, often subject to intense media coverage, and sometimes hotly contested. Also try googling "County board of supervisors" and you'll see all the other counties -- Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Kern, -- these are quite notable organizations with considerable say in land use issues, planning, just about every aspect of county administration. Information on these boards is easily verifiable, and reliable sources include the local government websites. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Board article and Delete the 5 articles about the individual Board members. The GoogleNews results cited by the nominator are in fact quite substantial[58], 505 hits. While most of the coverage there is not in-depth, it is certainly nontrivial. There are also 415 hits in GoogleBooks[59]. Having taken a look at the article, it is clear that some POV clean-up is needed there. The individual articles about the 5 Board members, however, should be deleted, IMO. There is no evidence of substantial coverage of these people individually and local politicians at that level are rarely notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. Their names could be mentioned in the main Board article, which would be quite sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - county supervisor boards are a significant and notable governmental organization. No opinion on the individual board members --T-rex 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Marin County Board of Supervisors; merge this article into Marin County, California as there isn't much actually said in the article once the names and unsourced statements about the politics of the members are removed. I would not oppose a fully-fledged, standalone article on the governmental structure and history of Marin County, California, but, unfortunately, there is not enough here to start one. B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowgram

Apparent self-promotion by a dotcom that hasn't even launched yet. Entirely written (prior to minor edits) by User:Ickbray, which looks like an SPA. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as Iridescent comments below, this is without prejudice to later recreation. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: An advertisment. Schuym1 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation once the company's up and running. Abhay Parekh looks like he probably warrants his own article though. Certainly not speedy material though. – iridescent 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article went up too soon -- if the company is successful and gets decent press coverage, then it should be revisited. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm craving musube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement lacking in sources that fails the notability policy. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:47:33 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A future fact is stated, a blog is used as a reference to describe the product. Biography is self published, I am glad he had a wonderful time growing up? Untrustworthy sources used for most primary points. Delete. - GaryECampbell (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honey, I Love You

Research for this one isn't encouraging -- it appears to fail WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh my God, I actually played this at church camp ages ago. It's just a silly little game that I doubt could be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, because I remember playing (and enjoying!) this game years ago too. However, the article has no sources, and I couldn't find any reliable sources either. TN‑X-Man 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whilst it obviously has some recognition in some areas (USA?) due to the previous two comments, it does look like a thing someone made up one day and other than people who go to 'camps' (again this is an asusmption but in the USA?) this dosen't really encompass something well known to the rest of the world. BigHairRef | Talk 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party of Connecticut

Research turns up nothing to support its existence (an Independent American Party is in Connecticut, but that is part of a larger American political operation). The link in the article to the official web site is worthless. Appears to fail WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The party does appear to exist but is non-notable. GoogleNews returns 10 hits[60]. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if the party still exists - I have not located any news of their candidates for this year's election. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they still do exist, just are not covered by the media. Here is a May 200 blog post regarding one of their political endorsement[61] (not to say that it is a reliable source in the sense of WP:RS, but still, probably an indicator of existence). Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One-sentence article, with no sources, that contains less information than could be extracted from a yellow-pages (phone book) listing. That blog does suggest that the party exists, but it's not a basis for writing an article. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources --T-rex 00:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is This My Ride? Seeking Divine Guidance in Our Lives.

Self-published book (Lulu Press is a vanity publishing company) whose notability is not confirmed via research. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A book with no reliable sources that can be found (if there is any). Schuym1 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination sums it up well. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Several Times (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:45:53 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Corner Tech

This article began as coverage for a company called Around The Corner Tech (created by the editor ATCTech). It was nominated for a Speedy Delete, then it was rewritten to its current form. Unfortunately, the neologism for "Around the Corner Tech" is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a neologistic mess. TN‑X-Man 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Around the Corner Tech" -wiki -dennis yields 10 hits, rarely used neologism. GaryECampbell (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - a Google search generates 20 hits. Currently no references or sources whatsoever (there was one but it didn't once mention the phrase), and completely unencyclopedic, with only two sentences as of the most recent edit. Also, created by ATCTech, originally about some sort of company, and then changed to a sort of dictionary definition, which also fails WP:DICT. gm_matthew (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Originally was an article created by ATCTech to promote his own company. I then attempted to fix the article by rewriting it to a semi-used phrase. ATCTech, however, keeps rewriting the page into an advertisement for his own company. Either delete this article, or somehow get ATCTech to stop using wikipedia as an advertisement for his own company. area968 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - 68.214.196.165 has been reverting to the original company article (four times today). That IP resolves to Florida, so it's likely ATCTech again. Regardless of which article version is there, I vote delete. justinfr (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Frate

The result was Speedy Delete, G1 --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Appears to be a newly coined neologism and given the lack of sources likely to be found should probably be deleted BigHairRef | Talk 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources provided by east718 do not make the current stub any less unverifiable or original research. No prejudice to writing a sourced article from scratch, though. Sandstein 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract hip hop

Article is comprised of original research, and violatesWP:V,WP:RS, and WP:NEO Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here to solve that sourcing problem.

A gang of sources...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Abstract hip-hop elevated to new heights" by Jazon Paz, published on March 11, 2002 by the University of Hawaii
"Rap, Hip Hop and Exploitation" by Karen V. Kelly in the January 14, 1995 edition of the Michigan Citizen
"Abstract hip-hop mix-master...", published on September 19, 2004 by the Washington Post (disclaimer: I haven't read this article)
"Beaten in Taipei" by Max Woodworth in the April 13, 2001 edition of the Taipei Times
"Behind the beat: 10 classic hip-hop albums" by Chris Vongar in the July 29, 2007 edition of the Dallas Morning News
"Soul Train Awards Continue To Honor Black Music" by Kaia Shivers in the March 15, 2000 of the Los Angeles Sentinel

Concerns about original research can be addressed by one or more experienced editors giving the article a once-over. east.718 at 12:05, July 2, 2008

Delete Original research, bias viewpoint, the article remotely sounds like a product from the way it's written Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:44:55 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only news source was a promotional for one album, the wiki is loaded with niche lingo, WP:NPOV problems?PB666 ^yap 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the above refs discuss the genre in detail, then keep. If East has read those sources, I suggest he turn the article into a sourced stub because it's highly unlikely anyone else will source the article anytime soon (I would but I can't access those refs online). Spellcast (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 06:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political hip hop

AfDs for this article:

~~Article is recreation of deleted material, Original research, and violatesWP:V,WP:RS, and WP:NEO~~ Deletion withdrawn.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not suitable for an article. Enigma ^message 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) East presents a good case for inclusion. Enigma ^message 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; clearly not a neologism, and even a cursory search through news and scholarly databases reveals that this is a legitimate topic. Possible sources for consideration include:

A bunch of newspaper articles...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Out on the Edge: Political Hip-Hop; Rap and Rant From Souljah, KRS-One & Disposable Heroes" by David Mills in the April 5, 1992 edition of the Washington Post
"Time to revive political hip-hop" in the April 8, 2005 edition of the Spokane-Spokesman Review
"Political hip-hop a major force in South American youth culture." by Cindy Carcamo in the April 11, 2006 edition of the Orange County Register
"Profile: Political hip-hop", aired on the June 17, 2004 edition the NPR program Morning Edition
"Arab-American rappers find new voice in political hip-hop music" by the Associated Press, April 3, 2006
"Is Political Hip Hop Dead?" by Oliver Wang in the January 18, 2005 edition of the San Francisco Bay Guardian
"Political hip-hop at SOB's" by Diego Graglia in the August 15, 2007 edition of the New York Daily News
"This political hip-hop focuses on one issue" by Alicia Wittmeyer in the August 3, 2004 edition of The Daily Review (Spokane, CA)
"Hip hop culture's identity crisis" by Gary Pieters in the May 17, 2007 edition of the Toronto Star
"Another selective rebellion from Public Enemy" by Michael Corcoran in the September 29, 1991 edition of the Chicago-Sun Times
"K-10 connection: Everything s coming up hip-hop between KC and Lawrence" by Jenee Osterheldt in the November 28, 2003 edition of the Kansas City Star
"The Unheard Hip Hop" in the August 11, 1999 edition of the Minneapolis City Pages

...some books...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Books:

The Resisting Muse: Popular Music and Social Protest by Ian Peddie
What the Music Said: Black Popular Music and Black Public Culture by Mark Anthony Neal
To the Break of Dawn: A Freestyle on the Hip Hop Aesthetic by William Jelani Cobb
Spectacular Vernaculars: Hip-hop and the Politics of Postmodernism by Russell A. Potter
Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience by Henry Louis Gates and Anthony Appiah

...and a scholarly work.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Black Arts Movement and Hip-Hop" by Marvin J. Gladney. African American Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, Special Issues on The Music (Summer, 1995), pp. 291-301. Indiana State University; ISSN 10624783

Any concerns about original research can be addressed through the normal editing process. east.718 at 05:00, July 2, 2008

Keep per east718's exhaustive list of sources. Be sure to put a copy of those on the article talk page! Vickser (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'd never have thought of that! Will do... east.718 at 06:10, July 2, 2008
- Regardless, it is still recreaion of deleted matirial, which over lapes with the more general genre consious hip hop. As for your sources, how do i know wether they are merley refering to hip hop which happens to be political, instead of refering to it as an actual genre, which it is not. lyrical themes do not make genres.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try going to the sites. Thats a rather large list of newspaper and related sources. Appears automatic grounds for inclusion in my opinion. Suggest a withdraw? — _Maggot^Syn 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps a merge with conous hip hop would be a better solution. Thoughts? Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean Conscious hip hop. But if you no longer wish it deleted, suggesting a merge can be done on the articles talk page. — _Maggot^Syn 11:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep That sourcing shown here needs to make it into the article, though. It doesn't need to be merged with another hip-hop target. there is more than enough to merit a unique article. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to those sources above, there's an Allmusic entry and numerous results for "political hip hop" and "political rap" in Google Books to verify this genre. Yeah the article looks crappy now, but it'll improve. Spellcast (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence of notability presented above convinces me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Convocation Chamber

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Star Wars franchise. As such, it is repetitive and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited in-universe plot summary. WP:NOT#INFO. --EEMIV (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in favour of keeping a fair amount of Star Wars articles because of the relatively high cultural impact of the series, but come on... an article about a fictional room??? At best this would be a redirect to Corcuscant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving the two or three relevant sentences to "The Senate" section of New Republic (Star Wars). - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a fictional room :-P... Artlcle could easily be covered elsewhere if it has any importance Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:41:38 19:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability and it was also a copyvio. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Inside

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per snow and quick consensus. — _Maggot^Syn 11:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roller Coaster (video game)

does not assert notability. Article provides no third party sources asserting notability β^_command 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an old game, so expectedly, it is not easy to find information asserting notability. This combined with less interest makes it hard to say that it can't be asserted as notable. On top of that, it creates precedence to delete many other games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has some coverage as a game by third party sources and real-world relevance, even if the article does need to be cleaned up some.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. SashaNein (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reviewed by CRASH magazine, a notable ZX Spectrum magazine. I also don't want 95% of Atari 2600 articles, and 90% of all classic video game articles deleted based off the potential horrible precedent set by this nom that may have came about on bad terms from Deletion Review just because two Fair Use images formerly in this article tagged by BetaCommandBot failed to have a rationale. SashaNein (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Definitely encyclopedic in nature. MuZemike (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If anything, it needs cleanup. I've read said article above, and deleting all images, as infringing copyright-wise it may seem, is still no grounds for recommending an entire article for AfD, unless the article itself jeopardizes a copyright claim, in which this is not the case. MuZemike (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Comment AfD nomination is also incomplete. MuZemike (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - published work. Betacommand may wish to have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (toys_and_games)#Video games. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - numerous third party references to this game do exist, particularly via magazines. It shouldn't be too difficult to add in-line citations to these magazines into the article. What has been affecting other video game articles (ie. Sonic) isn't the case here. --tgheretford (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep game was awarded a Crash Smash and was the first game to feature amusement park rides. I will work on the article to try to clean it up. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article asserts plenty of notability, and certainly meets the video game notability criteria. It just isn't all referenced. This can be addressed, and is certainly not a reason for deletion. Neıl 龱 09:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use this site and search for 'Roller Coaster' and you'll get no less than four magazine reviews uploaded and ready to be cited, thanks to Miremare for bringing the site up :) Someone another 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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