Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

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.

Fondation Calvet[edit]

The result was Keep as notability is asserted per references provided below. (Non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really short and gives no information about this museum. More, this place is really little known in France and fr:Fondation Calvet has been deleted a few days ago. Do we need an article about each little foundation in the world ?

--Pymouss44 Causer 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The museum has been around almost 200 years. You can find references to individual pieces in the collections at http://jhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/search?session_query_ref=rbs.queryref_1204590353560&COLLECTIONS=hw1&JC=hiscol&FULLTEXT=%28Mus%C3%A9e+AND+Calvet%29&FULLTEXTFIELD=lemcontent&RESOURCETYPE=HWCIT&ABSTRACTFIELD=lemhwcompabstract&TITLEFIELD=lemhwcomptitle&ck=nck --Eastmain (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was deleted from the French Wikipedia as a copyvio, not for lack of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As the English version of the website explains, this museum houses a significant and varied collection, and is clearly notable - far more so than dozens of American museums we have entries for. I have added a bit to the article - there is far more information available. I suspect the nominator does not come from the region. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Museum site describes just one part of their collection: "In 1947, Parisian collector Joseph Rignault gave fifty-two paintings and forty-nine watercolors, pastels and drawings from the 19th and 20th centuries to the museum. His donation included works by Manet, Daumier, Cézanne, Berthe Morisot, Forain, Guillaumin, Toulouse-Lautrec, Marquet, Modigliani, Dufy, Vlaminck, Utrillo, Rouault. There are also five paintings by Chaïm Soutine, unique in France outside of Paris." For comparison the Tate only has 3 Soutine paintings.[1] How about nom withdrawal and speedy keep? Ty 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a worthwhile article, and a worthwhile collection, per Johnbod (talk) and above. - Modernist (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Johnbod is right I am the nominator and live in Ireland.I started the page because the foundation maintains the important natural history collections (regionally very important) of the botanist Esprit Requien (1788-1851)once it's director - see the French page which I will shortly translate - as well as those of the founder Colvet.I see now it is an important art museum as well.Incidentally the Wikipedia pages cover Velletri which is not mentioned in the English language tourist guides. It's excellent museum would never be seen despite the superb and superbly displayed Early Christian sarcophagus far better than those in the Vatican museums. Notafly (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolutely, for it's among the oldest and most important public collections in southern France. And please note: the Foundation is all but identical with the Museum Calvet. Therefore, the entry should be renamed (Musée Calvet), and the foundation should be described at the Founders page (Calvet). --rpd (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the rename, except that the Foundation now runs three units in 3 locations; I think the situation is better handled with redirects, which need to be done. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one moment please, I have to check it. --rpd (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The founder, Esprit Calvet, has already an entry. Thus, renaming/shifting the page will cause little problem.--rpd (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss my point. You have the main Musée Calvet, the Musée Lapidaire, and the Library (which includes the coins, and the prints I think). In fact here there seem to be 9 different museums involved - only one "branded" as the "Musée Calvet". Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's have a word on administration (the museum, for example) and ownership (the foundation, one of more possibilities), for then we are at least at the soil of the problem. The Museum Calvet houses various collections, one of which is part of the Calvet Foundation, which, on the other hand, owns (or once owned?) things which are now in the Louvre. Here at WP, it's our task not to mix up these things, I believe.--rpd (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - but I think it is the other way round - the Louvre has deposited objects in Avignon. What about all the other musems? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the deposits of the Louvre you're right - sorry. The Musée Lapidaire is, at present, evidently seen over by the Musée Calvet (and appears on its webpage). Musée Calvet's own entry on WP was redirected to Esprit Calvet, by Wetman. All entries involved are stubs, and now? --rpd (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should clearly redirect to this article. But the foundation also run the Petit Palais, the Natural history Museum, the Jewish museum etc etc. Since we don't have articles on these, we should add them to this article under the founation name. I'll copy all this to the talk page, where it should be continued. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hairspray Cast Lists[edit]

Hairspraycruft. Is there a place to draw the line here? Should we have a list of the cast of every production of every musical or non-musical play ever performed anywhere in the world? Sourcing on this is also incomplete - a list at the bottom of the page doesn't help the reader to understand how you know which performer appeared in which production. Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be the most appropriate under the individual productions' pages. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Listcruft and follow the suggestion of anabus maximus MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Burger[edit]

This article was created by Wburglett (talk · contribs), who is likely to be the subject of the article. Twice notices about non-notability and reading like a CV have been attached, but this user has taken them down after a while. Notability of an academic can be difficult because many are widely published. However, this is a fact of the academic career rather than a claim of notability. All the notability claimed is self-referential. I move that this article be deleted on grounds of non-notability, keeping in mind that autobiographical articles are frowned upon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable academic. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Dgf32 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep Based on google scholar, hes eems to be somewhat of an expert on the subject he works on.DGG (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be anything here indicating he's not just another professor. -R. fiend (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely self-promotional. Renee (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Possebon[edit]

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has yet toplay football at professional level.

Delete as nominator English peasant 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Note that the article was also previously deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has already made his first appearance with Manchester: [2]. Never mind, that's the reserves. Jfire (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Downes[edit]

Contested Prod, Non-notable youth footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has never played at professional level. Youth caps and squad numbers do not confer notability.

Delete as Nominator English peasant 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Until he makes an appearance, there remains the chance that he will never play and disappear into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citation of (even local) media coverage is added to article. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix Racing Manager[edit]

Article describes a computer game which looks as if it never got finished, has not been released, and possibly does not have a snowball in hell's chance of securing the licences it needs to be released. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I made the final few edits and was about to propose deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.112.68 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it gets released, it fails WP:N, and it falls under WP:SNOW for the failure to secure proper licensing. ArcAngel (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to indicate that this game is notable. It hasn't been released. It likely won't be released. And it's development has not been of such interest to generate any coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to British National Party#Policies. Blueboy 96 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of the British National Party[edit]

Cut and paste fork of British National Party. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Rockpocket 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There was no real discussion or consensus for this fork, and it causes major POV problems. It leaves the main article without much from the BNP about themselves, and the fork itself is little more than BNP propaganda without any rebuttal from secondary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the aformenetioned commeents give a reason for the deletion. The lack of concensus and the lack of NPOV aren't reasons for deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True, we could just blank it and redirect back to the BNP article. Rockpocket 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This page is just a soap box for a political party, which is againt Wikipedia policies. Spylab (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge as needed) to British National Party#Policies. This is a reasonable search term, and deleting this outright could lead to reader confusion or re-creation of an even more POV article. Deleting this page does not allow the information to be incorporated back into the article, as was brought up by Hackney. Alone the article is certainly soapboxy, however incorporated into the article, where there is possibility for discussion of other POV's, these policy summaries can provide useful information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information hasn't been removed from the article, it's still there. First ClueBot, then various other editors misunderstood the intentions of the edit as he didn't use edit summaries when removing it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete The page was created by a now-banned user as part of a campaign against myself and others, which included him making several reverts, acting entirely without consensus (or reason), threatening users, vandalising user pages. It was made simply by abstracting a section from BNP, which was totally unnecessary, and one must suspect NPOV issues were involved. The entirety of the article as created is still part of the BNP page and provided there within context. The banned user has a history of this. There is no need for this page to exist. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Liar and cheater Emeraude says I vandalise user pages, when he vandalised mine and never responded to my initially polite comments. Trickster and con-man One Night In Hackney has done the same thing. The BNP accepts practising Jewish members and is staunchly pro-Israel if you read their news articles. But then again, these guys are liars, and ignore what they don't like. I won't be surprised if this truthful comment is deleted.Qwenton (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Truthful comment"? (1) You did vandalise pages and were warned for it (and subsequently banned for harassing users). (2) I did respond to your comment, (3) which was intially NOT made to me, when I edited the BNP article, (4) by pointing out that the article does say that the BNP has Jewish members. (See Revision history of British National Party: "22:05, 3 March 2008(Article states there are Jewish members! Party's view as stated here has been referenced.)".) None of this has anything to do with the present AfD. You will be surprised that your comment is not deleted. I think it and your attacks on users' pages say more about your attitude than I ever could. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, although a small consensus, the nom has presented a solid argument for deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline Israel[edit]

This article concerns an organization of questionable notability with no references provided. The call for more references has been up since July 2007 and no one seems to be willing to back up their assertions with fact. Given as no one seems to want to fix it, and I'm not sure it meets the criteria for organization notability--especially as there are no other Wiki articles that link to it, to the best of my knowledge--and that the article is also filled with inflammatory language, I doubt Wikipedia will get anything approaching an NPOV, wikified article for this group. From WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Delete. Iamblessed (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _(1 == 2)^Until 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable group with a POV-ridden writeup. Only 22 unique Ghits, and only 20 on the Israeli Google, which you would think would have more. RGTraynor 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted: author blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic prostatectomy[edit]

Prodded because it was blatant original research. When the prod was removed, so were the clues of OR. There are still no sources. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result is Delete per WP:NOT, the keep opinions did not address the issues. While this is by a notable artist, this album is not yet officially released, no prejudice against recreation once the album is released.. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Roses (The Rasmus album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for this being the 2nd Afd for this article, and per failing WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you link the earlier AfD? I can't find it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Article was prodded by User:Neon white on November 23, 2007, reason given was "wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is unconfirmed rumour and badly sourced". Prod removed by User:72.195.139.18 four days later. No reason was given for the removal. Article was prodded again by User:Hello Control today for the reason given in the AfD nomination above. Ironically, User:Neon white was the one to contest this second prod two hours later. This is the first time the article has been sent to AfD according to the article history and deletion logs (which are empty). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Here's what I thought was the first Afd - [3] ArcAngel (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Rasmus discography until seperate notability per WP:MUSIC is established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the source is the bands website and this [4], i'm happy that this album will be released, therefore deleting seems pointless. --neonwhite user page talk 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being happy isn't really an argument for keeping it, even though that's probably not covered in WP:ATA. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - meets WP:MUSIC as an album by a notable artist; The Rasmus. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, specifically the second sentence. The article has sources proving that it will be released, so deleting now will mean the article will be created in a few months anyway. Or, just keep it now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I see that the second sentence says "officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Two parts of that excerpt are important to note here: 1st, this album is not (yet) officially released (or even finished); 2nd, it says "may have sufficient notability", not "does". Without independent coverage notability isn't indicated. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Unionist Alliance[edit]

Delete - I've had a search around the web and also can't find anything independent of any significance. Other than brief mentions in blogs and references to the Conservative-aligned Irish Unionist Alliance founded in 1885, a couple of which mention an obscure modern organisation of the same name without giving useful details, the only references seem to be located on the Ulster-Scots Online website, which isn't enough, for my money. Warofdreams talk 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems notable enough to me; couldn't care less, but there aren't any other Free State Unionist parties (are there?) so it may be notable for that. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which part of WP:CORP (or perhaps even WP:WEB since they only seem to exist online?) do you think they meet? And WP:V requires independent sources, perhaps you'd like to provide those? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - small but certainly notable minority organisation being one of very few Unionist organisations in the Republic of Ireland. relevant to the "Unionism in Ireland" section of Wikipedia. has been covered in Irish newspapers - Anglo-Celt and Longford Leader. has an active web-forum / guestbook hosting an on-going discussion for many years. previous version of the Irish Unionist Alliance was the largest Unionist grouping in Ireland outside of Ulster pre-1921. given that today they represent only a small minority of people they could hardly be anything other than a small organisation. --Pondersomething (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organisation described in the article certainly doesn't seem notable - I can't find any references in the Google News archive, which covers the major Irish news sources. However there was an organisation of this name which is certainly notable - the one found by Warofdreams - for which there are plenty of book and newspaper sources. If this is deleted I'll write a stub on the notable Irish Unionist Alliance. If the modern organisation ever becomes notable then its article should be called somthing like Irish Unionist Alliance (founded 2006). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I am a political junkie, and I'm generally fascinated by small and unlikely political groups, and this one appears to be set on reviving a political tradition which otherwise disappeared in the 1920s. However, I can find no trace of them in the major national newspapers. A search of the Irish Independent draws nothing. A search of 1996-present text archive of The Irish Times produces only one hit, relating to the late 19th/early 20th century organisation, and while a search of the Irish Times's pre-1996 digital archive produces nothing more recent than 1891. A Google News search throws up nothing after 1921, I can find no trace online of any mention of them in the Anglo-Celt[5] or the Longford Leader[6]. The article says that 'The number of its members, or their identities, have not been revealed, it stating that it was using the internet to preserve their anonymity "for the moment"', so its hardly surprising that they have received no coverage. However surprising the idea of a revival of unionism in the 26 counties, this anonymous group appears to be nothing more than a relatively obscure website, with no identified individuals beyond their webmaster and with apparently no printed publications. The nominator is right: this group fails WP:CORP and WP:V, and may be nothing more than one person's website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely if it was notable pre-1920s it matters not whether it has since collapsed. Over and out. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go and help Phil write an article on the original one then, not the "man with website" who has seemingly hijacked the name. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ONIH. Unlike this one-man venture, the original Irish Unionist Alliance is clearly very notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No verifiable claim to notability, indeed, no more than a website, not even truly an organization. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as blatant advertising. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNEAKPEEK.CA[edit]

Non-notable website. Unsourced, no reference to show why it is notable. CSD and prod removed by anon IP Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Blatant spam. Tagged. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. ArcAngel (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, get rid of it: and as though you needed any more proof, User talk:SNEAKPEEKTV —αlεx•mullεr 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; ample coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Islam Summit[edit]

Previously nominated for {{prod}}. Although the tag had been in place for five days, it was removed before the article could be deleted.

I'm not convinced this article can ever meet Wikipedia standards. Most importantly, it fails verification. There were no references at all on Google Books or JSTOR. The first couple pages on regular Google search were all blogs and other unreliable sources. This deletion rationale was described as "nonsense" by User:Bwalker5435, but we delete articles for nonexistent verification all the time. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check to see if the two sources cited were real? If they are, then this is a keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the "external links" section and this is definitely real and has been reported by notable news sources. Speedy keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a small number of passing references in newspapers and newsmagazines. That might qualify for a mention on Wikinews, but not on Wikipedia. I just don't see how this meeting has had any real long-term impact, or else it would have been mentioned by some scholarly source somewhere. One concern I have is that Wikipedia's lengthy coverage of this minor conference violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How would this violate NPOV? This is a factual article about a factual event. There is no POV. And how is this coverage "lengthy?" And you can spin tons of things as "passing references." The summit was notable; please check this. Fifteen hits. Is this a "passing reference?"

"In St. Petersburg, the Secular Islam Summit, sponsored by a humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry, featured Muslim speakers who ranged from angry ex-believers to devout reformers. They differed sharply on particulars, but all shared the conviction that Islam must be compatible with secular democracy. Their closing manifesto, "The St. Petersburg Declaration," affirmed the separation of mosque and state, gender equality in personal and family law, and unrestricted critical study of Islamic traditions."

Also, many of the speakers at the summit are notable individuals, for what it is worth. Keep. Hazillow (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen, and it is useful and relevant information. I don't see why it should go Jpineda84 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep an article in the Washington Post and live coverage on CNN alone give adequate verifiable sources and clear notability. Add in articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Toronto Sun and the US News and World report and there can be no doubt that this is well sourced and notable. Gwernol 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Center for Inquiry, the organazation behind the summit. Although there was coverage from reliable sources, the coverage wasn't substantial enough to make this one-time event establish long term notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and possible copyright issues. Blueboy 96 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Envirotainer[edit]

Looks like a copy/paste article from a user manual. Notability of instructions, WP:HOWTO, unreferenced, uncategorized - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Envirotainer is a manufacturer of temperature-controlled containers for shipping temperature-sensitive materials (pharmaceuticals, for instance). This looks like an instruction manual for their product, which isn't appropriate here. A description of the company and their product might be, although I have no idea how notable they are. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Not#Manual--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pathetic attempt at spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank or delete. I found this: [7] Not sure about the notability of Envirotainer in general, but this article has to go due to its howto nature. If it is kept, then the possibility of copyvio needs to be investigated. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Regardless of coverage or not, city councilmen from major cities--in this case, the capital and by far the dominant city in Ireland--are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daithí Doolan[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted page. [8] As per previous deletion: "An unsuccessful candidate in the 2007 Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO For politicians this is: >>Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.<< Doolan doesn't meet any of these criteria and google [9] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a city councillor - which is not in itself notable." Subject doesn't appear to have done anything of note since then. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as being a serving politician he has courted a lot of controversy due the murder of Joseph Rafferty and has had a lot of press coverage. BigDunc (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable. He's mentioned in passing in sources about Rafferty not in his own right. See WP:NOT#NEWS "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." Also see WP:BIO above, being a serving politician is only relevant if he is a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. Dublin City Council just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for BigDunc.--Padraig (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a serving politician in Dublin City Council, very out spoken which has courted a lot of controversy. One of the main spokes persons against the proposed incinerator a Poolbeag, which is only one of a number of campaigns I know off. --Domer48 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, Dublin City Council isn't a national, state or provincial legislature so that is irrelevant. I've no doubt that numerous politicians can boast of similar campaigns but that doesn't qualify them for inclusion. Valenciano (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted material, otherwise Strong delete because Doolan clearly fails WP:BIO. The article makes two claims to notability: that Doolan is a member of Dublin City Council and that he was an unsuccessful candidate at the Irish general election, 2007. WP:BIO says clearly that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and those are the only claims made in the article for Doolan's notability. The sentence in WP:BIO continues "although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone", and notability on those ground would be assessed in the normal way by the test in WP:BIO#Basic_criteria, requiring that he be the subject of substantial coverage in independent sources. Several "keep" !voters above have made claims that Dolan is notable on these grounds, but the only references in the article are external links to Sinn Fein and to Sinn Fein's local organisation in Dublin South-East, and no further evidence has been offered at AfD of substantial coverage which could provide evidence of notability. So far as I can see, the "keep" arguments here have no basis at all in the notability guidelines, and amount to WP:ILIKEIT. I am surprised that experienced editors such as the keep !voters do not appear to be familiar with WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS This article was first created as one of dozens of short articles on Sinn Fein candidates for the 2007 general election: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_006#Category:Sinn_F.C3.A9in_politicians. The recreated article is almost identical to the version deleted at the previous AfD. (Note that only admins can read the deleted text). In the discussion in the archives of my talk page it is noted that Doolan was a member of Sinn Féin's Ard Comhairle (or national executive committee, see Sinn_Féin#Organisational_structure), distinguishing him from the other unsuccessful candidates. That may be the case, but holding party office does not confer notability, which would still need to be established through Doolan being the subject of substantial coverage in independent sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of member ship on the city concil of a really important city. We accept that as noability intheUS, and I dont see why Dublin would be different. DGG (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO#Politicians point 2: says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.6 Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". Please do read the the linked footnote, which says that "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." No evidence has been offered that Doolan "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are a couple of examples of significant press coverage, where the articles are about him rather than just giving him passing mentions.[10][11] Also there are plenty more references available in the Google news archive, some of which are just passing references but many give him a couple of paragraphs. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - municipal councillors in cities in Dublin's league are almost certainly notable, and evidence has been provided of meeting WP:N with regards to coverage by reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a list of independent sources regarding him. As you can see he is also Sinn Feins spokesperson on the environment. BigDunc (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that there is little support for deletion here, as Europe22 says it's a chart single. But it may be better for the organisation of the encyclopedia as a whole if it were merged to the article on the album. I will close this as "no consensus" and recommend that those interested in merging discuss the matter on the article's talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald song)[edit]

Non-notable single. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes it should be deleted for not being notable. She already has an entry for the album.--The Smoking Nun (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Meets WP:N : the single was charted. Europe22 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album - Notability is met, but there's still not enough information to warrant an article separate from the album. Per WP:MUSIC: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this article was created on February 11, 2008 (it isn't a permanent stub). There is also WP:CHANCE (even if I think this article will never be expanded... ;-)). Europe22 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think three weeks is enough of a chance for it to move beyond what it is now, and "permanent stubs" is just shorthand for 'articles that are highly unlikely to ever progress beyond stubs'. I'm not all that optimistic about this article's chances. That aside, the first part of that sentence still definitely does apply. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak with the edit summary "G11: Blatant advertising". Non-admin closure. Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red & Ginger[edit]

This animated film is not notable. I did a quick Google search to look for reliable sources, but I was unable to find any after the search yielded 20 results.[12] Furthermore, it is obvious that the creator of and primary contributor to the article is Barry Martin, the person who wrote this film. Also, this guy has spammed other websites to promote this film.[13] I believe this article was written strictly for promotional purposes, and fails our inclusion criteria. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. If it receives coverage by film critics, I could conceivably see the article being recreated. --Pixelface (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a {{db-g11}} tag to the article per WP:CSD#G11. --Pixelface (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no verifiable, possible nonsense. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 17 (Sailing)[edit]

Ghits show a lot of false positives but not one iota of notability for this class of sailing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this quote: "And apparently there really isn't a formula 17 class. Nacra just uses it as a sales pitch."[14] I found several other similar references that suggest that this is something of a fraud. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RushCon[edit]

A fan convention that fails to establish notability. A google news search doesn't turn up any third party sources, therefore failing WP:RS. Wizardman 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"RushCon is the biggest convention in North America of fans of the rock band Rush.' is an assertion of notability. A google news archive search does find third-party sources as does a google search. 75.177.84.51 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails any measure of notability by a lot. When one actually tracks down the handful of sources, one finds quotes like this from a website mentioning the con: "The event attracted just 200 or so diehard fans ... 'The lack of enthusiasm was not a total loss,' smiled fan Ken Hoffman, from Walnut Creek, California. Rush, also among the no-shows, were unavailable for comment." The Toronto Star blog entry just mentions the con, and the other cites are all trivial mentions. Is there so much as a single reliable source about the convention? RGTraynor 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, compassionately, as this would embarrass me if I were a Rush fan. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a Rush fan myself, but the article just doesn't appear to be notable. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A3 non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Philippines[edit]

From what I can see from the page and Google, this subject appears to be something created by a random person who just happened to have a lot of time on their hands. The "official" page is a multiply.com page, most (if not all) Google hits refer to the original multiply.com page, and there is no third-party source showing the legitimacy of Billboard Philippines. Basically, it just looks like some guy ripped off the Billboard template, used some data (including "internet votes"), and compiled a list. A lot of effort, but certainly not "official" or "legitimate", and therefore the page should be deleted. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOAX. Total hoax. Only source is its website, and I think that Billboard would've made an actual site instead of a blog on Multiply. Its a poorly made hoax. No reliable sources to its officiality. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page's author added some bogus chart positions to some song articles. I reverted them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Philippines don't have a Billboard chart. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The NY Times story is pretty convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company

RS coverage are directory listings and ghits don't assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: Lots of Google News Archives hits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, most of which are directory listings, company reports and profiles, nothing that establishes notability. No coverage discussing the company per se. It's existed for a long time and if that alone makes it notable then it may be, but there doesn't appear to be much coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Amongst those Google news hits there or some which give substantial [15] [16] or semi-substantial [17] coverage. Surely we have room for the maker of over 100 types of chocolate bunnies and Gummy Body Parts? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yeah, I like to know Where Chocolate Bunnies Come From (read presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of role-playing game groups[edit]

Mandatory AFD; hangon template placed. Speedy placed per CSD A1. Belinrahs (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mandatory to post an AFD just because a speedy is opposed. I would have speedied this. But since it's got an AFD, let it run. For myself, delete. Only one (non-notable) entry; open invitation for everyone to add their clan to the list. Better off without it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow. Obvious speedy too. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Multiple verifiable sources do exist for the subject. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Ogilvy[edit]

Following discussion at WikiProject Royalty, I am nominating this for deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability. This person does not carry out any royal duties, and the only claims he has is that he is 35th in line to the throne (not high enough to warrant an article in my opinion), and that he is Princess Eugenie of York's Godfather. Bear in mind that being a parent or off spring of a notable person does not confer notability, as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED, therefore being a Godfather should not either. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Ogilvy has no individual notability for the purposes of an article on Wikipedia. I have always contended that inclusion on a notable list does not make each element of that list notable. Charles 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is notable enough. If he is mentioned in the line of succession then naturally one wants to know who he is. Andres (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is mentioned in the line of succession, he's mentioned in the line of succession. Do you propose articles for all 1400 or so people? Really now... The elements of a notable list are not all notable. Charles 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read also this: Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Charles 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If more info could be added (that Times article seems to be a good source) about his business and things like that. I'm surprised his sister's article was deleted, she at least sparked countrywide controversy with her out-of-wedlock pregnancy and subsequent marriage, so she was at least notable. Flesh out James' article with more info though. He is notable. Morhange (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that Times article": What Times article? ¶ "Countrywide controversy": Maybe among the tut-tutting readers of the Daily Mail; I think other people had other stuff to think about. ¶ "He is notable": For what? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a better claim to notability surfaces. He enjoys some small note as the publisher of Luxury Briefing, but as the magazine itself has a rather low profile I don't think this in itself is enough. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's autoplagiarism time: This chap Ogilvy just tags along to the odd wedding or funeral: no speechifying, no bottle-cracking, no ribbon-snipping. Being in line to the throne is perhaps significant when it's imaginable that those above will all die. I cannot believe that more than twenty (indeed, more likely ten) would disappear other than in a nuclear attack or whatever so ghastly that even the most ardent royalists would be unconcerned about kingship. When he's not wondering about the day when 33 -- no, 34 people have been wiped out by an asteroid, it seems that our man is concerned with the publication of Luxury Briefing, a newsletter for those involved in selling expensive goods and services (says the Telegraph), making money, enjoying his wristwatches, and dreaming of an Alfa Romeo. Well, OK, but not notable or even obviously columnworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He seems to have been de-Dutched. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't the biggest, best or smartest, its when the media takes notice of you for any reason. The Telegraph and other articles make him notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these "other articles"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles James Ogilvy in Google News Archive --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see 151 hits for "James Ogilvy". Quite a lot of them are obviously about this or that James Ogilvy who's irrelevant to the one we have here. Of the rest, it's not always clear what the article is about unless/until one hands over the credit card info to buy a copy of the article; however, many give the impression that Ogilvy (probably or definitely this one) is barely mentioned. Of course I can't expect you either to guess what they're all about or to pay money for them, but could you perhaps specify three or so among them that appear to say something significant about our man? -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. --Veritas (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually I think that he is notable. Axl (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what? -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This & this. Axl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The former link tells us that he's just a normal chap who happens to be rather obsessed with expensive goodies and with money. (Very slightly interesting in its revelation that the nobs have no qualms about expressing a fondness for lucre. We can bury the dead concept of infra dig.) The latter one is new to me. It starts with a bit of pseudo-Windows (pretty hilarious when viewed in KDE) saying Congratulations! Guaranteed WINNER! Congratulations you WON! Click 2 [sic] Claim. I ignore that drivel and a pile of other advertising to read that (i) our man has carved out a successful niche as an editor in the publishing world for the past ten years by launching the magazine Luxury Briefing in 1996; that (ii) he claims it is The only business publication for the luxury industy [sic]; that (iii) this costs £375 for ten issues; that (iv) the Ogilvys and Windsors continue to be close, and that in conclusion (v) life really is one of luxury for James Robert Bruce Ogilvy. If this is the only business publication for the luxury industry, then I must have simply hallucinated a great number of others. It's so notable that, well, see for yourself. He's rich and happy and knows people: do write-ups for this in one newspaper column and in one article in an advertising-drenched royalty gossip site constitute notability? -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Notability isn't inherited (although nobility clearly is!). At number 35 in the succession to the British throne, it is surprising there aren't more reliable sources available which have substantial coverage of this individual, whose Mum is the Queen's cousin. It is extremely unlikely he or his descendants will ever become monarch, unless the higher 34 all stand on a metal framework during a storm to get their picture snapped. Edison (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: R A Norton has put a lot of work into the article in the last 24 hours. But we don't learn anything new. Ogilvy was born to famous grandparents, aunties and so forth. His immediate background wasn't just low-rent, it was no-rent (paid for by Mrs E Windsor, as I vaguely understand it). He's had a normal life. He went to a famous wedding, he has two kids, and he founded and publishes Luxury Briefing, about which nobody has bothered to write an article. And that still seems to be it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Your thinking of the Guinness World Record version of notability where you have to be the biggest, or the best. Wikipedia only requires that you are written about by "multiple independent sources", and that all the facts can be verified. So you can have one biography in the BBC or the Daily Telegraph, and be notable, or have a half dozen smaller articles be the source of the article. He has both. When the media takes note of you, your notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not thinking of the biggest or the best. Ogilvy's had multiple media mentions, as you pointed out earlier. The BBC noted his birth. A gossipy column in the Telegraph wrote him up as a normal person who has a somewhat unusual candor about his love of money and expensive goodies. An advertising-drenched website wrote him up in one page. The media have taken little note, and when they have it has been very minor note. We read: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. For these two gossipy sources, "intellectually independent" is a bit of a stretch. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, either your research skills are lacking, or your the Oliver Cromwell of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article I read seems to show a person whose notability is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I came across this article the other day, I saw little of notability in the person concerned, and as the article already had a {{notability}} tag, I decided to raise a discussion at WikiProject Royalty, expecting members there to come up with good reasons for why he was notable, and hopefully improving the article to prove this. Instead, the only responses were to take to AfD. Since then, R A Norton has done a great deal of work updating the article and providing better references, though whether these reach the standard quoted in full by Hoary above is debatable. I suspect this will go through as no consensus, though I don't envy the admin who has to make the decision. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rutherford House. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Friends of Rutherford House Society[edit]

No assertion of notability, while museums are notable I don't see how "Friends of" societies could ever be. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rutherford House. There is already a small paragraph about this society in Rutherford House. That paragraph could be expanded. Bláthnaid 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Fly Like a Bird per consensus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly like a bird[edit]

Page is nothing more than a short list of flying-related topics. The page claims to help readers hoping to fly like a bird, which makes it a violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO; outside of this, it's just a short version of List of aviation topics. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~WTF? Delete. Not an article. Senseless..~~ -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per TPH below. I'll do it if no one objects. -R. fiend (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was no need for an AfD discussion on this article. This article qualifies for speedy delete. Dhshah (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the suggestion of Redirect to Fly Like a Bird. Dhshah (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fly Like a Bird, the Mariah Carey song. No need for anything else on this page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, page should become a redirect to Fly Like a Bird once the current content is deleted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very few songs are of sufficient notability to warrant an article; a redirect isn't feasible, as Century (song) isn't a likely search. I'll make a mention of this at Century (disambiguation). faithless (^speak) 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Century (single)[edit]

future expected album with no notability on its own; wait for it to hit charts - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable single maybe if charted could try again with this article. BigDunc (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (leaning towards Weak Keep). It is a release by a a notable, charting band on a very notable label, but i'd merge it with its parent album until it charts or at least is released physically. And should be recreated as Century (song) when it is. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Federation, A Star Trek RPG PBEM[edit]

Non notable RPG game... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced and next to impossible to search for (hundrends and hundreds of similarly non-notable games/sites). Notability could only be established by tyhis game being published by a notable gaming company. Not so here! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to search for it - there's a link at the bottom of the article. Looks as though this isn't a RPG gaming system - it's an instance of a Star Trek RPG. This could probably be a speedy as a non-notable club, but as that's a bit subjective I'll let it stand for discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per Zetawolf. Poor article of non-notable fan-made rpg of Star Trek. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh Not notable. Axl (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps[edit]

No evidence of notability. It's a local organization that doesn't meet the WP:CORP guidelines. Ghits are directory listings and minor coverage of calls they responded to, nothing asserting any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local organization contains no assertions of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Duplicate AfD of duplicate page, now redirected to Prof Jacqueline Eales (we can fix the page name later if this survives AfD). For the still-open AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Eales[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, speedy delete as duplicate. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: didnt need an AfD... was already tagged for speedy. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Bournedale Outdoor Education Program[edit]

Seems unremarkable, and Google only throws up one relevant link, not that that is a reason to delete it, but just an thought. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - admirable, but utterly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability, no more notable than any other local program like it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days. May go nowhere, and I wish editors would have at least minimal sourced article content together before article creation, but wouldn't hurt to hold off for a few days. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete.. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Jacqueline Eales[edit]

Seems unremarkable person αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I keep seeing people treat "non" as if it were a standalone word rather than a prefix. Have they completely stopped teaching the concept of prefixes? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not comment on the commentator... your comment is taken as a personal attack. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Also has a duplicate article under Jacqueline Eales which was created by same person today. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I closed the duplicate AfD and redirected the duplicate article to this one. We can sort out what the proper name for the article should be later, if it survives this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wildly un-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhshah (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Two major books by importanbt publishers. That would be enough as an author, and the professorship adds to it. DGG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be notable, however, contributions to huge multi-editor works such as dictionaries don't seem to qualify as notable unless there are reliable independent references that indicate her contributions are unusually important within the realm of reference publications (asserted, but not backed up). --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable author satisfies professorial inclusion standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly valid - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A leading academic in her field, as worthy of near-automatic inclusion as people who kick, carry, throw or otherwise interact with spheroid objects in the field of sport, &c. The content of the article appears to be able to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (although some references would be good) so unless it offends against WP:BLP or WP:NOT, it is line with our inclusion policies. What the guidelines might say is of no interest, I stopped paying any attention to those a long time ago. As for the name, the good professor's own website says Jackie Eales and that's how she signed a letter to the Telegraph. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Wanted to Dance: The Remixes[edit]

original individual song(s) contain(s) no chart-based notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how is this notable? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it didn't chart, then it fails WP:MUSIC, and therefore fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 11:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyathlon[edit]

Apparently nn event that never took place due to the coordinator's death. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising, non-notable spam. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to parent article. Black Kite 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Supina[edit]

individual notability not established; individual is not notable enough for his own article; information in this article is largely trivial - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N and WP:NPOV. ArcAngel (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to A Wilhelm Scream the band that this person plays for, because it is a plausible search term. There is not enough notability for this person outside of that band. Bláthnaid 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Tahoma. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Union League Golf and Country Club[edit]

Mandatory AFD: hangon template placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Am I missing something here? Since when does a hangon = mandatory AfD? If the speedy is declined by an admin, AfD may be appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I have learned, hangon = AFD nom. The nom reason could be interpreted as the reason put for the speedy. If anyone handy in Wikipedia policy can give me input (and corresponding proof, such as a link to that policy) on this matter, tell me on my talk page. I'll continue to do what I'm doing until I am told otherwise. --Belinrahs (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have learned wrong. A hangon does not require an AfD. The removal of a PROD tag reqires an AfD if the initial prodder or anybody else feels that the article should still be removed. Did you read the hangon tag? :Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon Corvus cornix_talk 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any course designed by Alister MacKenzie is notable in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In any case, I just declined the speedy, since it is a very famous club of great historical significance in California, and there are abundant sources. I don't understand "delete per nom," since there is no reason for nomination given. I suppose it means "because its spam" , since it was speedied as G11. However, I think any spam can be removed or rewritten, & the article is not primarily promotional . DGG (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup and copy edit, but definitely appears to be a notable golf course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and per TPH, needs cleanup and wikification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - and sourcing! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taliworks[edit]

Mandatory AFD: hangon template placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve; there must be sources out there. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CORP because it has been written about in reliable sources. Bláthnaid 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notability is unambiguously confirmed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

London Bulgarian Choir[edit]

The result was Keep Notability is asserted. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Mandatory AFD: hangon notice placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first nomination is irrelevant, Twinkle somehow messed up and didn't finish the task. This is a first nomination. --Belinrahs (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't see reasons here or in other page - perhaps due to same Twinkle problem?
Keep Reasons from Wikipedia:MUSIC 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable 11: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. (admission of bias: I wrote the article as it stands)Catafalque (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been established to my satisfaction. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no reason for nomination given — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For above reasons. Note to Mike... the revision which you placed the CSD tag on pretty clearly asserted notability. A PROD tag may have been more appropriate. SingCal 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G3 (hoax) by Orangemike (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noveninsky[edit]

Hoax entry, zero hits in Google (outside of an older hit on Wikipedia). Justin Eiler (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further info Article started by a now-blocked, vandal only account. It was {{prod}}-ded as an obvious hoax, but the prod notice was removed by User:Drhaft, a new user (possibly a sock--removing the prod notice was that editor's first edit). Justin Eiler (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as hoax. Picture is of Radom. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX, blatant vandalism Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, does not meet notability standards for cooperations. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIRA Energy Group[edit]

Was prodded, but then removed by an IP. Reads like an advert and possibly a non-notable company. -WarthogDemon 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe it fails WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is not a public utility, but a consulting group. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does read like an advert, but I think that this consulting firm is notable. Looking through a Google News search, most of the hits are when the opinion of a person from this consulting firm is included in the article (eg these New York Times articles [18] [19] [20]). There are some articles behind paywalls that are about this group Mark A. Schwartz joins PIRA as managing director PIRA gives big points to biggest oil companies. Bláthnaid 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the NYT articles reveal is that people from this consultancy group have been called and quoted by reporters in stories about other things entirely. They don't really tell us anything about the company itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I differentiated between articles including an opinion from a person and articles about this group. To me, the presence of so many articles that include opinions from members of this group indicates that they are an important source of information in their field. This says that 300 companies use PIRA as a consultant. A tiny bit of information here There is a snippet view from Google Books here that unfortunately cuts out possibly useful information. I don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls, but what I can find indicates to me that this group is notable. Bláthnaid 23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, nom's concerns were adressed; this is now a perfectly valid dab page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallimann[edit]

None of the listed individuals in this purported disambig page has a WP article so is it a valid disambig? ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination was completely valid, but I replaced the purported dab page with a real dab page, with three bluelinks. Now it deserves keeping, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - after the excellent work done by David Eppstein. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles like this. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete can be recreated if reliable sources can be found. --Salix alba (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turbine Toucan[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate the significance of this aircraft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some info on this plane on the web. Examples [21] and [22], but i'm not 100% sure if these satisfy WP:N. For now neutral but interested in others opinions on the sources.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a puzzle. It's obviously notable to the degree that everyone who follows that sort of thing appears to know about it. Online justification for notability doesn't fit the standard rules, however. It may be necessary to go after print sources. Perhaps delete but without prejudice. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if/once notability can be established. Cube lurker's link [2] above appears to be just reproducing a press release; link [1] is much better but not enough by itself i think. To quote from that, "It will be up to Erickson to develop an airshow program featuring the Turbine Toucan for the 2008 airshow season." If that succeeds (I almost said 'gets off the ground') then there's likely to be little problem establishing notability in a few months' time. In the meantime, WP shouldn't be used to aid their marketing to airshows. Qwfp (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left anarchism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. User:Max rspct requests that this article be deleted on the grounds that "Its a non-notable or fringe term that belongs in wiktionary + the page is just being filled with fringe right-wing libertarian claptrap". See Talk:Left anarchism for further details. скоморохъ 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force-related deletion debate. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, The different concept do have notable circulation and sources are plenty to be found as shown by reference section in the article. If Left anarchism is not notable enough to deem keeping then I propose that a new article is created called something alike Right and left anarchism where Right anarchism/Market anarchism and Left anarchism is being explained in relationship to each other. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When people come across this pretty common concept, the concept of a left-wing form of anarchism, they want to be able to look it up in the encyclopedia. Why not allow them the opportunity? Information is what Wikipedia is about isn't it? Operation Spooner (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename:This article doesn't just cover a term used by free market anarchists to describe libertarian socialism. The Post-left tendency is hardly "right ring claptrap". They see "left anarchists" as a negative term, but not out of a preference for conservative values. They desire to push anarchy towards a more radical tendency, and critique its historic relationship to leftist politics. And there is a tendency among some anarchists to see anarchism as an extreme leftist tendency, and thus accept it as a positive term. Bookchin saw it this way before he abandoned it. An alternative may be to rename the article, though counter to Lordmetroid's suggestion, I would advice "Anarchy and leftism", so that it not only cover the use of the term "left anarchism" in a subsection, but also anarchist perspectives of leftism.--Cast (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - really exists. Could be one of the few serious articles on Wikipedia, if only it could be expanded with better, more historic sources. Definitely doesn't stand at the same level as your typical AfD-nominated article! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, subject is not identifiable, thus no verifiable information can be found, thus no valid encyclopedic article can be made. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Shabeel[edit]

The article doesn't even give his full name, so it's hard to identify him or find any sources in the web, outside of Wikipedia mirrors. [23] mentions a "Colonel Mohamed Hassan Shabeel - a former division commander in the Barre regime who was responsible for the Genocide in Northern Somalia in 1988." Maybe that's him, though I couldn't find much else. The article should probably be deleted unless someone can identify him and cite reliable sources. fschoenm (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable in present form. Jfire (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep faithless (^speak) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords (band)[edit]

No reliable sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having Gene Simmons as a manager is an indication of notability, and there is an article about him and this band here. There is a review of one of their 1980s concerts here. Bláthnaid 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A famous manager isn't one of the criteria for inclusion on WP:MUSIC; are there any sources that address the House of Lords in more detail? The first one only has a couple of sentences about them, and the second one just seems to talk about how unsuccessful their performance was. --Explodicle (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A famous manager makes it more likely that the band has been written about. This is the case in the first article that I linked to. A review of one of this band's concerts means that the band is notable. There is also an article about the band here, and German reviews of 2 of their albums here and here. Bláthnaid 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC, as there is a fair amount of coverage in third-party sources. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Paul Erik. They sound terrible though. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets numerous criteria; here are two (or three, depending on how you look at it): two major label albums (on Gene Simmon's vanity label though RCA), both of which charted on the Billboard 200 (refs added), founding member Gregg Giuffria was formerly of Angel and Giuffria (the latter band apparently morphed into House of Lords). WARNING: Unencylopedic comment ahead—They were pretty bad. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, crappy article. Needs a full rewrite if keep. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable subject w. a bad article. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flashcolony[edit]

Neither the English nor Arabic ghits demonstrate any notability and there's no evidence of RS coverage to meet WP:WEB. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable website. Jfire (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. I have redirected the articles; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoopanese[edit]

I hate to do this, since I really like Da Yoopers, but unfortunately, it seems that their albums fail WP:MUSIC. All of these albums were released independently; the only sources that I can find for them are either the liner notes or short, mostly one-sentence reviews on All Music Guide -- in other words, no substantial coverage whatsoever. Also, the first four albums were cassette-only releases that have been out of print for almost a decade now; therefore, they're especially unlikely to have been covered.

Even though the band is clearly notable by criterion #7 of WP:MUSIC (the article's sources assert that they're prominent representatives of Michigan's musical scene), the lack of available information on their albums concerns me. Since it would be far too much information to simply merge the albums' track listings into their page, these album pages should probably be deleted for lack of individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The later albums feature slightly longer AMG reviews; however, I feel that this is more of an all-or-none case, so I'm listing them all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At first I was concerned that TenPoundHammer might be off his rocker, saying "slightly longer AMG reviews" because "reviews" means "secondary sources", and articles with secondary sources should not be killed. But upon reading the AMG reviews, they seem quite monotonic. Basically, the encyclopedic content of the album articles, and of the AMG reviews, boils down to "they wear thin after a while". All the rest is just lists of skits and songs without much interpretation, and the few skits that the AMG reviewer does single out for comment could be mentioned in the main article. So merge the albums into the main article, minus the lists but plus the specific criticisms. Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to merge, since the band's page makes mention of all their albums already. Also, as far as I can tell, AMG is the only reliable source to have reviewed the albums -- and to base their critical reception entirely on AMG might be undue weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct to the page on the band, so that people searching for the albums can find the information located on the band's page. -- saberwyn 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Da Yoopers or alternately a new Da Yoopers discography page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge albums to main article of notable band or create a subarticle. While the band meets WP:MUSIC, unfortunately, the albums do not have enough coverage to warrant articles themselves. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly we want to include the information about these albums somewhere in the encyclopedia. Either in their own articles or as part of the article on the band that recorded them, neither or these options requires deletion. Catchpole (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to be headed for a consensus to merge. Therefore, I am taking Dhartung's idea and making a separate Da Yoopers discography page, which will use the {{tracklist}} templates to save space. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support da merge to Da Yoopers discography page dere, eh? (Right towards the bottom end of Da Yoopers country here in SE Wisconsin) Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Core[edit]

Can find no reliable evidence to support the existence of a "brutal core" or "brutalcore" music genre (cf. most entries on List of hardcore genres which satisfy WP:V and WP:NEO). Most GHits are various bands, labels, usernames, etc. ~Matticus ^U_C 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, no evidence that this is a widely used term at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The term exists, but notable, I don't think so [24]. If notability proven, move to Brutalcore. Welt^anschaunng 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rewritten as Fire-retardant gel and advertising stripped out. There may be a better name for this article, or indeed an article may already exist that I've missed - please feel free to move it there if so. Note: I speedied the FireAde article as blatant spam, which it plainly was. Black Kite 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barricade gel[edit]

The page looks like an advertisement. No other Wikipedia page links to it, but it can be found using google if you know the product name ("barricade gel"). The article lacks sources and I think it is non-notable. It was written mostly by one author with minor modifications by others. KarlFrei (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note also that it links to articles on similar, competing products like FireAde; that page is even worse than this one. Question: is there a general article about this class of firefighting gel material? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with general article on class of products. As noted above there seem to be other articles on competing products, so this isn't exactly unique. I do agree that the type of product is deserving of an entry, or at least a mention in an appropriate article on firefighting/fire prevention methods. --BrucePodger (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (again) by Seicer (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. vespalian society[edit]

Mandatory AFD: hangon notice was placed Belinrahs (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possible hoax; no real assertion of notability, no sources; "hang-on" request says that members are also members of notable groups, but notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a hoax: "The club's president or chief officer holds the title of Grand Bizzledorp," for example. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. The word "bizzledorp" says it all. (Or at least it says more than the words "Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.") Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There are too many things wrong here. As was pointed out, if an article such as List of human fatalities caused by animals each year could be created, and reliably sourced, then it may be viable. But this article as it stands (a) is mainly OR (b) is unclear about the definition of "animals" - does that include insects? (c) is unclear about causation - do mosquitoes actually cause malaria deaths, or are they purely a mechanism? and (d) leaves logic holes - does the fact that, say, cattle, horses or kangaroos cause many deaths every year through road traffic accidents make them dangerous? (e) is flimsily sourced (WP:V). Black Kite 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most dangerous animals[edit]

Delete as POV article. While it might be possible to ascertain how many deaths are caused by certain animals, verifying it all is essentially impossible. Ranking most dangerous animals by deaths, when you can't verify those deaths, is bad. Even the one source the article currently has can't make up its mind whether mosquitos cause 2 million or 3 million deaths per year. That's a variance of 50%. This list can never be accurate. Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV article per nom. I mean, heck, I could put my cat on here because she bites everyone hard. It would also be very neary impossible to verify the number of deaths by certain animals (deranged Siamese-tabby mixes included). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is outlet for POV editing and original research. EJF (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I'll stay away from the polar bears and mosquitos and croc's, as for domestic dogs, I'll take my chances. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the most utter nonsensical article I have ever seen. Complete original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisms that are dangerous to humans. Punkmorten (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I removed the {{prod}} tag, I figured there must have been an article about this sort of thing already but I didn't know the name. I think this article is different than that one. This list would show the top 10 or top 20 animals responsible for human deaths each year, while the other article would show any animal considered dangerous. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a shame to delete it. Wikipedia could be a great way to collate reliable citations. On the other hand, perhaps there are not going to be sufficient reliable citations for this article in my lifetime (especially if I go near a mozzie). Smithsonian magazine, January 2006 gives an example of the problem: Although accurate numbers are hard to come by, lore has it that hippos kill more people each year than lions, elephants, leopards, buffaloes and rhinos combined. I'd accept sources giving 50% uncertainty as being statistically responsible, but I guess the sources available are simply not conclusive enough. OK, it goes against my natural inclinations, but... Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, unmaintainable list. Author seems to be an SPA to boot. Blueboy 96 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Fayenatic, I liked the article (or more to the point, I liked the America Online link), but ILIKEIT isn't good enough for a keep, nor is "INTERESTING". Since the AOL article itself is unsourced, I consider this one to be unsourced as well. However, the premise might make a good article if reliable statistics could be found-- a ranking, in effect, by number of deaths caused by a particular animal. Even with the data, it's still subjective-- the delayed reaction from a mosquito bite ranks ahead of the bloody violent death from a shark bite, and lions, tigers and cougars are all listed as "big cat". Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't require sources to cite their sources. And I also found it strange at first that "big cats" was a category, but just as there are many different kinds of sharks, jellyfish, bears, etc, there are different kinds of cats. We even have an article on Big cat. I assume each of the articles for each of these animals have statistics on the number of human deaths they cause yearly. That information can simply be collated into this article. I suggest this article be renamed, given the subjective nature of the term "most dangerous." --Pixelface (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, an entertainment piece on America Online doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source. I'm not sure what you mean by "we"... Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of government statistics on the causes of human death and the big killers like malaria are very well documented. Here's an example of a reliable source. The article just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is some room for an article discussing animal attacks and the risks thereof, but a list is never going to work. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I just recently removed a prod from this page and added a citation to AOL Travel. I believe this article can be improved. It just lists animals and the number of human fatalities they cause each year. The page can be renamed to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year if you don't like the current title, and citations can be added. National Geographic says "Malaria kills more than a million people worldwide each year—90 percent of them in Africa; 70 percent children under the age of five." The shark article says "The average number of fatalities per year between 2001 and 2006 from unprovoked shark attacks is 4.3." and cites this site. We don't have to verify each death, we just have to cite a reliable source. Animal caused fatalities is a notable topic. Animal Planet has the show Ocean's Deadliest. There was a TV show called The World's Most Dangerous Animals. I'm sure the Discovery Channel has several shows on the topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete I would support the article if the name were changed (as indicate above) to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year. The current title introduces gross (no pun intended) subjective POV bias into the content of the list.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT COUDL SAVE UR LIFE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is well-sourced and renamed to something more objective. The AOL article is interesting, but obviously only focused on the "scary" animals, because it neglects the deaths caused by dogs and horses, for example. --Itub (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. I went to search for just such a list, and specifically chose to look at the wikipedia first because my previous experiences with it being much better referenced and organized. I think the subject matter is appropriate to wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Unlike the "dangerous organisms" list mentioned above, this one appears to subject that isn't too general (as mentioned in the stand-alone lists guidelines). I see no reason why this subject matter has to be PoV and I don't think it is that highly PoV right now, although it could certainly be improved. The exact number of people killed/hurt per year is not required for such a list either. A google search on most dangerous animals shows a lot of potential sources/references, as well as a lot of interest in this subject. I would say that this article needs to be given at least another month or two to improve. Wrs1864 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: people keep saying there can be references for this. This is flatly false. There is no central repository for a definitive database that lists all deaths from X type of creature. The list can never be accurate because of this. It's based in large part on speculation, wild estimates, and impossibly unrectifiable data. Does anyone honestly think that record keeping of deaths from mosquitoes in Kenya is going to be as accurate as Zimbabwe, or South Africa, or Indonesia? We can't possibly keep this list accurate. It's pure speculation and wild guesses, nothing more. We might as well try to keep track of the most popular episode of Law & Order by the number of times it's actually been watched...worldwide...in every country...on every TV. You can't. Neither can you from this list. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an exact count is practically impossible. However, if there are published estimates from respectable organizations, then we could quote those. --Itub (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if they had some connection to reality. The only source cited in this article can't agree on whether a million people died from mosquitoes or not. We can all agree that people die from mosquitoes. Developing a list of the most dangerous things based on that? Hardly. Besides, people don't die from mosquito bites. They die from the diseases carried by them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked for references in the mosquito and malaria articles? This is a list of animals responsible for the most human deaths each year. --Pixelface (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Mosquitoes aren't even animals. Neither is Malaria. As I noted, mosquitoes don't kill people. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquitoes are most certainly animals from a biological point of view. Humans too, so we should add humans at the top of the list. ;-) --Itub (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sourcing isn't that hard for most of these. Itub actually makes a valid point we should note in the article that humans are not counted for this purpose but would be on top otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep faithless (^speak) 12:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deakin Business School[edit]

Article of non-notable sub-school of a university. Fails WP:N Twenty Years 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Twenty Years 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge are redirect with the university page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major law, medical, business and similar schools, whether called schools or colleges, are notable. In this case it apparent accounts for almost half of the postgraduate enrollment.DGG (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG - non-notability need to be substantiated - Satu Suro 07:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable school at the university. Per DDG, this is probably the most important and high-profile part of Deakin University. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I agree it's notable, but it is young and dynamic. In a few years time it will have quite a substantial number of distinguised individuals that have made their mark in the corporate world such as Chris Lynch of BHP-Billiton. To make the article acceptable, it should be expanded to fully reflect the institution it is. Jaker5 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, recommend merging and redirecting to Hull University ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hull University Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hull University TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Union is separate from the university and is a notable entity to which all of the students belong. It needs referencing and some clean-up but should remain. Keith D (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, but the article doesn't states why it is notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This union is no more notable than any other - it certainly fails to assert any notability through use of reliable third-party links - all references are links to the SUs own site. Some unions, like that of say Oxbridge or similar, may be notable. The vast majority, this one included, are carbon copies of one-another, and are not notable enough for their own entry. _Talk Islander 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) — Paddy Simcox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Oh gee, now I'm an SPA because I noticed a proliferation of student union articles. I also speedy delete tagged a lot of articles, which you can't see because they're mostly gone now. At least I'm not arguing that student unions are "inheritently notable". Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using an account mainly for one thing - in your case prodding and deleting, can often be construed that way. Please be civil; attacking others simply because they have a different view of notability isn't very civil. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keith D. Student unions are inheritently notable. GreenJoe 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This GreenJoe guy is the one who undid the propose deletion tags on all the student union articles I found, and marked my opinion as coming from an SPA. He seems to have overlooked my efforts to clear out non-notable concert tours, make redirects and do a few other things that interest me. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why? Where does it say that SUs are inheritently notable? I don't believe that.. _Talk Islander 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG. AN organisation with thousands of members every year for decades. That's where notability comes from. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, As I have said on my other comment, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. Personally I agree with Paddy's comment that every universities have a student union, try name one that haven't, therefore I won't be buying into GreenJoe's comment that every one are inheritently notable. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. The union like any such union gets covered in the local papers from time to time although distance from london and general lack of causeing trouble will likely keep it out of nationals for the most part.Geni 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the local newspaper removes its on line articles after 6 months so looking on-line is not particularly useful and you need to look at the originals at the local studies library. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? just because something only exists on microfilm doesn't mean that it isn't a valid source.Geni 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the issue is that it's local coverage only. Student unions are of interest to the local populations that they serve, which is why they fail WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generaly unions stick to serveing students. The wider community does tend to take an interest from time to time (traditionaly rag week but there are other reasons). Local newspapers are not normaly run by the student union.Geni 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry I think you took my comment the wrong way round. I was just attempting to point out that on-line sources may not be available to show third party coverage of the subject. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasoning for failing WP:N poorly conceived. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, as this is what I have been recommended to do. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - the info here is better served by including it with the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no main article.Geni 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is - University of Hull. _Talk Islander 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that is about the university. For very solid legal reasons unions tend to be seperate bodies.Geni 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...However, the union would not exist without the University, and it's in the University's best interest to aid and promote the union. Yes, the two are legally different bodies, but the two are so reliant on one another that for all intents and purposes they can be regarded together. _Talk Islander 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One is an education and research institution the other is focused on more social issues.Geni 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed - you managed to completely ignore my entire stance on the matter, and state yours again regardless. Very helpful. _Talk Islander 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hull University Union was viewed 364 times in February, and University of Hull was viewed 3813 times in the same month. So (if they scroll down) about 10 times as many people are reading about the Union on the University's page. From this perspective, a merge is better for all concerned. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those stats do not have any relevance to this debate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do WP:RS, WP:N and WP:ORG have relevance? Because the article fails all three. In any case, I wasn't saying to get rid of the article because it has few views, but to make people feel better if it is merged or deleted. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and be civil. There are no arguments for notability except that "inherent" and that is not backed by any precedent. Matchups (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the University article. I'm unimpressed by the claim that "student unions" are legally independent entities. Maybe so, but generally so are alumni-run college sport booster clubs, and we don't have separate articles for them. Every college has these student unions, their "membership" seems to dovetail with the student body count, they lack reliable sources discussing them in non-trivial contexts (when was the last time you read a newspaper article about your local university's student union?). Etc. RGTraynor 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with other organisations, student unions need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Loughborough University. Consider it done. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Campus Radio[edit]

Heres my reason why this is nominated for deletion, does being aired 4 weeks annually make this radio station notable? Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Loughborough University TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loughborough University Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. _Talk Islander 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Travellingcari. - Dravecky (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. An RSL station in the UK may not necessarily merit its own article, but it still unequivocally merits a subsection in the article on the university that operates it. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal kelly[edit]

Contested PROD. Individual is notable only for breaking school records and being rather good at basketball in college. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indications of notability or reliable third party sources. -R. fiend (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As far as athletes go, the rule of thumb is they should have played at 1) the professional level or 2) the highest amateur level. There are some exceptions to this, of course. For Crystal Kelly, that would mean playing in the WNBA or for the United States women's national basketball team. When she does that, she'll warrant an article. faithless (^speak) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unless better cites can be found ASAP, to show National acclaim. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Leicester. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lush Radio[edit]

Heres my reason why this is nominated for deletion, does playing twice yearly make this radio station notable? Most of its notability is within the campus and not outside it. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Leicester. - Dravecky (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dravecky. An RSL station in the UK may not necessarily merit its own article, but it still unequivocally merits a subsection in the article on the university that operates it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page, and would suggest it is worthy of inclusion. The station does operate on an RSL licence twice a year, but at other times throughout the University of Leicester academtic term it broadcasts continually on an internet webcast. I would also cite other student radio stations, such as those of the University of Warwick (RAW) and Univerity of York, which have their own undisputed Wikipedia pages. These stations operate similar broadcasting timetables and services (RSL) to that of Lush Radio. Further to Dravecky's point - Lush Radio is a media group of the University of Leicester Students' Union - which has oversight of the station. It is not strictly an organ of the University of Leicester as a whole and so merging it with that article may be innacurate. ellcol (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is still calling for a merge, considering it is not notable on its own. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would not call for a merge, since the only article with which Lush Radio could conceivably and accurately be merged with is the University of Leicester Students' Union - which is itself under AfD discussion. I also would reiterate my previous comment that other student radio stations have undisputed Wikipedia articles - could you suggest why this station should be different? Also as a distinct UK radio station which broadcasts both locally (on FM Radio) and potentially internationally on a in internet webcast - should the station not be worth of inclusion? ellcol (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Non-notable radio station, no claim to fame. Lucky to avoid {{db-web}} . WWGB (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Leicester Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people would stop coming to this site come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Leicester TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source with, perhaps, material from a local newspaper? Sounds possible. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - better have a look at Category:Students' unions before saying student unions are not WP material. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, just because other articles exist, I don't see why this is exempt from WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Or am I misunderstanding your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2008
Delete I'll happily state that individual SUs, by and large, are not WP material, because as Travellingcari points out above, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Most UK SUs are carbon copies of one another, so although there are definitely a small few that are notable, the vast majority aren't. This is one of them - it fails to assert any notability as far as I can see. _Talk Islander 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a continual supply of undergrads writing articles about their student unions (and their dorms), which loom large in their lives. These articles then are deleted. And so it goes... Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has a value - as do others about Students' Unions. The relationship that students have with Unions is often both temporary and disparate. Temporary because the average length of an undergraduate degree is only three years - this means that knowledge easily leaks away from both the organisation and the students. Disparate because students will typically only interact with one Union; wikipedia is an almost unique source that allows these organisations to be compared. The article has the opportunity to grow as a store of historic information.Mjs59 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about students' unions do have value, as the organisations generally have quite rich social and political histories. These could easily be backed up with journalistic sources and university records. Although individually perhaps they are mainly of interest to those associated with the locality or the university, this is the same as with many other WP articles / categories. Prlewis0 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the major student organisation in a university is a major division of the university, has an important part in the life of the place, and is a good place to merge articles on individual student organisations. DGG (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Students' Unions are notable in general because they provide a "student life"-based perspective not covered within other student organizations. The local newspaper, Leicester Mercury, has steady coverage of this Students' Union; but I added 2 BBC articles in External Links. The University of Leicester Students' Union is notable in particular because it received the "2005 Students' Union of the Year" award from magazine Club Mirror (I added a citation), and because of the national precedent set by its soft drink VAT legal case (which should be included within the main article, but for now, I added 2 External Links). Coffee4me (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all above 4 keep nominations, I'm sorry to say, dosen't all student unions do that - provide a "student life"-based perspective not covered within other student organizations, plus local paper will do what they do, tell local stories and support local causes such as universities, that is the case with my former university. If you want this article to be kept, I recommend you all delete all these spam pieces, otherwise I will continually see this as a AfD candidate until all this is done. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I'd sorry but I must object to your viewpoint. All students unions may provide a "student life" but the manner is which they do so varies and each student typically identifies with a single union; while others (particularly graduates) will be interested in comparisons between different organisations. Regarding notability; is a students union any less notable than the class of rolling stock that Virgin Trains use on a particular route? I'm not attempting to reference "WP:Other Stuff" merely pointing out that granularity has value. Furthermore I would argue that the union is notable for the following reasons: A membership circa 20,000 with 6,000 new members each year diverse both nationally and internationally, it is a distinct organisation from both the University of Leicester and the NUS, it won Students' Union of the year in 2005 and was nominated in the two following years, it was one of the first unions to have and "International" sabbatical role and since one of the first to not have a "President", the list of musicians that have played at the venue and the media outlets that it supports. I would invite further discussion regarding the tag of "Advertising" and references to "Spam" and invite anybody to reference any issues on the Talk pages of the article to further improve the article.Mjs59 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, I'm sure that every SU will have no trouble having this many members considering how many students are there. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Leicester. Student unions are rarely, if ever, notable independently of the universities or colleges whose student bodies they serve. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator of the page I was asked to comment, and a deletion is inappropriate in this case. The page should stay albeit with significant modification. The Leicester Students' Union is notable as a gig venue (several gig venues appear on wikipedia on their own), it is notable in legal precedent (as shown in the external links), notable in the etymological field (examine the Ripple article linked) and for its scale. Any proposed merge with the University's page would itself be an error, as the 2 institutions operate independently, have separate philosophies (one is fundamentally charitable (the union) whilst the other is an educational establishment.) To highlight this difference, the 2 organisations came to blows in a court case recently (in Private Eye at some point.) I have modified the section that could be labelled as "advertsing" so this tag is probably no longer needed. MichaelSalter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Learning Center Foundation[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (with the same name) with no other edits other than related to The Learning Center Foundation. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (plus WP:COI). —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --DAJF (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloog[edit]

Minor detail (namely, one monster) from Commander Keen games. Would better belong to a devoted wiki (the article lists two). Delete. If I were really generous, I might have suggested creation of a page like "Creatures in Commander Keen series". (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holy crap this is gamecruft to the extreme. I'm a Keen fan, but this is ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar per CSD G10. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yarukku Yaaro[edit]

This page is unnecessary and it is exploiting Wikipedia's resource for personal use. 210.81.12.108 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Released film. Notable. Just needs clean up. Universal Hero (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as established by reliable sources. A google search turns up nothing but YouTube videos and a few blog comments. PC78 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, if more reliable sources turn up, I'll be happy to change to keep. The Dominator (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is just evolving. this is just like any other movie related article. No personal use involved in this article. The supporters will try and complete the full fledged article in a span of time. Yutha vasanth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this utterly fails WP:V and is probably a hoax is much stronger than the argument which says it's only a reference problem thus no need for deletion

Neofuturism[edit]

Get rid of this article. It is primarily the work of a single editor, who has only two edits (the other edit was an upload of a photograph of, supposedly, himself). Merge it, delete it, I don't think it matters. But as it stands, this article is very much below Wikipedia's standards. 75.111.18.26 (talk · contribs) Copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Specifically what is of concern to the nominator? Does he/she mean to say this article lacks notability? Or just that it is not well sourced and could have COI? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not the forum to submit articles that have WP:PROBLEMS. Google Books/Scholar verify this is a notable topic. скоморохъ 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm.... This article seems to be a hoax. It's hard to wade through all the buzzword noise, but google suggests that that neofuturism is actually an artistic movement, rather than philosophical. So I say, Delete. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree that it needs a re-write but a google search shows that this is notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mangoe and the nominator that, once you sort through the sesquipedelian bullshit, the article does not square with the traditional definitions of neofuturism in art and architecture. The author appears to be having fun with this as an intellectual movement, a literary movement, an aid to "the impoverished field of future studies" (it provided "greatly needed neologisms and paleologisms", thank you). And there's now an intellectual divide in the school, which (naturally) makes adequate deconstruction impossible. Naturally. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article might be written on one (or more) of the several movements or trends that the word has been used to denote—in particular, the Russian artistic movement—but there's nothing to do with this particular article except to jettison it. Obfuscatory goobledegook intended to disguise a complete lack of meaning. (And, by the way, it fails WP:V, since you'll not find any sources to support the "information" contained in this mess.) Deor (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like someone's pet Sokal hoax, in the total absence of WP:RS sources this completely fails WP:V and has to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. All Copyvio appears to have been removed, and - as noted - sources have been added. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Doppler effect[edit]

This article makes extraordinary claims with no references. At best, it is a complete misunderstanding. Habashia (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup When searching for this, I can find several sources which mention this, including this article which describes in more detail the experiment in our article, as well asthis abstract from MIT that specifically goes out to prove that this does not exist, proving that, as the nominator says, this phenomenon is a complete misunderstanding. While conflicting, there are multiple reliable sources to confirm that this is not a hoax and was actually honestly researched. The article could be cleaned up to describe the experiment in better details and enumerate why this theory is incorrect. I've added the above sources to the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is now sourced and seems to meet the WP:N standards. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets basic wiki standards and can be improved further. Dhshah (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I agree with Minimaki. It is a copyright violation. Dhshah (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This apparently is a copyright violation of this article from 2003, and stayed in Wikipedia essentially unmodified since 2004. An article about the term may or may not make sense, but the current text has to go. --Minimaki (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copy violation and added another ref. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be deleted - now the copied text is in all revisions except the last one. --Minimaki (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:RS, quite a lot of press[25] and academic coverage [26]. Seems to have quite a long history of investigation. --Salix alba (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand to include sources mentioned by Hersfold. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended to remove the (I think false) implication that the phenomenon was demonstrated conclusively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habashia (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Live Though an Executive[edit]

Article in its current state has zero secondary sources, it is entirely comprised of large blockquoted material from primary source, self-referential material affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I did a few searches in news and other archives in attempts to find any secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources that significantly discuss/analyze this work. Though How to Live Though an Executive is mentioned in a few books, this is only in the context of listing works by Hubbard, in other books by Hubbard, or a brief mention in passing, no significant discussion, no reviews/analysis. A search in the news archive Infotrac for the title brought up zero results. If there is any significant discussion/analysis/reviews in secondary sources, I have not been able to find any, after searching in multiple archives. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Foobaz·o< 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without prejudice for recreation if at some point independent notability is established. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the links (that work) are to sell the book.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click MusicalKEYS[edit]

I see one trivial review ( I read Spanish so the language isn't an issue) and once you filter out download locations, ghits don't assert any notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. Listed sources are not reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 by Seicer (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conway Hall[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC only a myspace site linked, zero google hits. Probably would be a speedy if I knew whether a "studio album" was notable enough? SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Three possibly self-released albums, and they toured with a non-notable band. That amounts to zero assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguably this could have (and should have) been speedied under CSD A3. There may be a valid discussion here somewhere, but it should probably be part of the Quran article. Nandesuka (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final testament[edit]

Seems to be a WP:OR essay, not contributing to the encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic bible for the AfD on another article by the same user which is link to in this one. SGGH ^speak! 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There do appear to be sources that say this is an established cognomen for the Qur'an. Indeed, the disambiguation page on Testament includes the Qur'an for that reason. I'm inclined towards a redirect if there are no other articles which could also use this title; otherwise, it could be turned into a disambiguation page for the articles. --Sturm 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google book search revealed atleast one other book than the one mentioned below[27]. So we may have a disamb page here. Welt^anschaunng 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Testament does seem to refer to the Quran according to this book [28]. As for the content of the article, it seems to be telling nothing more than Qur'an. Redirect to Qur'an. Welt^anschaunng 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all OR. It is a well known argument in Islamic thought that the Quran is the final testament. See for example the book referenced above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article has been modified since the last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dan Patrick (Texas politician)[edit]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dan Patrick (Texas politician) (2nd nomination)

Obscure figure with little to none references have turned this article into an advertisement. Kibbled bits (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sitting state senator in a district which includes a major city, published author, television and radio broadcaster who has appeared on national radio and television programs in either guest or host roles. Inherent notability (at least to me) seems to be established. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me.--Habashia (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sitting state senators are inherently notable per guidelines for politicians. Feel free to cleanup the POV-ness if you like. DarkAudit (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members and former members of state/provincial legislatures are notable per WP:BIO#Politicians. Clean the article up as necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Dhshah (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extremely explicit sentence on the subject in WP:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the content is without citations. If it's not deleted then I will be force to do heavy cleanup :( --Kibbled bits (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, with respect, an absurd reason for deletion. Besides that, nobody says you have to do it. I mean, we'd certainly appreciate it if you did, but it's not like it's automatically your responsibility. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is not. I do not think this figure is very noteworthy and most of all I don't think being a state senator (which there has to be well into the hundreds?) or a state rep (ditto) automatically qualifies you for an article. I do think there are issues with people of little interest being populated with misinformation, which IMHO is worse than any information at all. --Kibbled bits (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO seems pretty clear on the notability of office holders. Dan Patrick passes. Active politicians are always a problem. That's why there is an "activepol" flag. It just takes more vigilance by responsible editors. The Dan Patrick article seems more lopsided than unverifiable. Balance is a surmountable problem. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a tag. There is now. You're welcome. (And thanks to the followup editor who moved it to the correct spot.) :) DarkAudit (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the wiki-gnome who made the follow-up edit, you are welcome. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kibbled, if you want to change the guideline that state-level elected office-holders are notable, you might want to take it up at Wikipedia talk:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, members of state, provincial or national legislatures (current or ex-members) are automatically notable per WP:BIO.--JForget 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in one supplement. Already mentioned in passing at Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). No evidence of any third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) Web Warlock (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is already mentioned in a list of dragons that we have- probably all that is needed. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional creature with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE as the primary source is a gameguide, and the descriptions fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Anaghwilliam[edit]

Non-notable bio, zero non-Wikipedia google hits. Anonymous user (author?) deleted prod tag with no explanation. Also see related articles Sir George Charles Anaghwilliam and George Charles Anaghwilliam, both of which should be deleted as well. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Lack of references and zero ghits suggest a clear lack of notability at best, or a hoax at worst. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below, indicating that the subject satisfies the criteria for notability and verifiability. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kart Fighter[edit]

English: Fighter (delete) – (View AfD)

Another Chinese ROM pirate that fails verifiability and notability. Wiki22445 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. While the article is bare bones, since when is Kart Fighter something you can't find plenty of information on?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, does the fact Gamefaqs list this game count for anything?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Someone another 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search has revealed some additional references. The article currently has 6 references, including one published by IGN Entertainment's GameSpy network. While the article is short and definitely needs to be improved, it does not fail verifiability nor notability as claimed by the nominator. FightingStreet (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per everyone above. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A proper article is possible, but this isn't it. Hopelessly incomplete, poorly referenced and the author doesn't seem interested in developing it. faithless (^speak) 12:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Relatives[edit]

Contested PROD. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN ^{aka john lennon} 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait a bit~~ - As the original PRODder, I had intended to wait a bit before going to AfD, along the lines of WP:NEWBIE, as the original poster intends to improve/restructure the article soon. --bd_ (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original poster hasn't returned in a few days, I change my vote to Delete. --bd_ (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Viscardi[edit]

This person obviously created his own Wikipedia article. Considering the sheer number of people who have the same level of accomplishment as he does, it is ridiculous to leave this article here. Cami Solomon (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of relevant ghits suggest notability, and the ABC article is a reliable enough source of information. No evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a vanity article created by the subject himself. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Erdős number of 3 is evidence of notability.~~ Lots of press coverage of Siemens Westinghouse Competition win. Significantly high level of achievements for a 17 year old. No evidence that this is a vanity article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY Keep "Sheer number of people who have the same level of accomplishment"?? Has the nominator already forgotten all the headlines about Michael Viscardi from two or three years ago? All the TV news programs, all the articles in places like Newsweek and the New York Times? The nominator should explain with complete specificity the evidence that he created this article himself. I looked at the edit history. I don't see it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with Gandalf61 that his moderate Erdős number has anything to do with notability. But the competition win and concomitant press coverage should be enough, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look at List of people by Erdős number, go down to "3" and count the blue links and the red links. Nearly all are blue. Should this one be an exception? I don't think so. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on this article, but if it is deleted, we'll just remove it from the list. The red links there are intended for people who should eventually have their own articles. Ntsimp (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To avoid controversy I have removed my remark about Erdős number. It was only one of my four arguments anyway, and probably the weakest. My ~~vote~~ considered opinion remains Keep. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is USA Today's article about Michael Viscardi.
- Here is a New York Times article about Michael Viscardi.
- Here is the Globe and Mail (Toronto) article about Michael Viscardi.
- Here is Pravda's article about Michael Viscardi.
- Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pterafolk[edit]

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage. Has appeared in a couple of supplements relating to a single setting. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor monster at best. Maybe a brief mention on the Faerun page. Web Warlock (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Web Warlock and others above. Non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Balance of the Unverse

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

The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Balance of the Unverse[edit]

The misspelling of the article name notwithstanding, this seems to be entirely original research. No real citations, the author is merely espousing his own "scientific" opinions. Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, not encyclopaedic and most likely utterly crap. Man with one red shoe (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Pete explains it all, but nobody understands it. Scoff. Scoff scoff. Scoff. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a page move of the article to the correct title. I then came here to move this discussion. I went back to the article to read it though before that and feel that the article is so ridiculous in its presumptuousness and so rife with WP:OR ("let's first discuss this..." and then "we can see together that..." . Yikes. I wish there was a speedy category for this. Strong Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: gross NOR. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per notability as indicated below. Any cleanup issues should be handled through the normal editing process. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Bar None[edit]

Reason for nomination is the tome of it is too promotional for this page and for another thing, fails WP:N, also there are a number of organisation like this and this one does not indicate notability Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable award scheme. Run nationally in the UK as an initiative between the Greater Manchester Police, Home Office and British Institute of Innkeepers. Plenty of mentions in recent press reports, etc. Promotional tone is an argument for improvement, not for deletion. — mholland (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and the promotional tone can be taken out usually faster than nominating for AfD. --Step hen 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic philosophy[edit]

Non-notable philosophy, seemingly taken from one website; no mention in reliable sources independent of the subject. скоморохъ 11:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —скоморохъ 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; OR. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. This article seems to be about someone's personal project, and is referenced entirely to one website. An article under this title might be plausible. Google Scholar reports 1,140 hits on the phrase, a fairly substantial number. A lot of those seem to have to do with Herbert Spencer and his system, whose major publications were part of a grand scheme he called A System of Synthetic Philosophy. Redirection to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy is one option. If someone wants to write a real article about what makes Spencer's philosophy synthetic, and what other sorts of philosophy is aimed at synthesis, there may be a plausible article for this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true that Herbert Spencer did develop something he called synthetic philosophy. He dedicated much of his life to it and published his findings in a series of books: A System of Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, Principles of Biology, Principles of Sociology and Principles of Ethics. His project was very broad in scope and contains much that is of interest, but it would be hard to show that it was philosophically successful. It didn’t deliver any kind of philosophical resolution, it didn’t have much of an impact on the wider philosophical community, and it isn’t included on many of today’s philosophy syllabuses. It proved a philosophical dead end. Arguably this is because the components needed to construct a satisfactory philosophical synthesis weren’t available in his time, after all he was working in the 19th century environment of pre-Einsteinian physics, pre-genetics biology and pre-Wittgensteinian conceptions of philosophy. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page with Synthetic philosophy (Herbert Spencer) and Synthetic philosophy (contemporary).
Synthetic philosophy does seem to be both innovative and scholarly. Perhaps it does provide the viable alternative to analytic philosophy that it says it does. If this is the case, then it is definitely notable and Wikipedia would be doing its users a disservice if it deleted the page. I recommend not deleting it, and perhaps adding a disambiguation page and an article on Herbert Spencer’s synthetic philosophy or a link to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.118 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original research, and largely here, apparently, as a way to propagate links to and publicize a single web site. Kill it with fire. Nandesuka (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind's argument really swayed my decision on the outcome of this debate.

Planet Youth[edit]

Seemingly non-notable local youth group. Prod removed by creator w/o comment. tomasz. 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete church event at a church we don't even have an article for. Written like an ad, but wouldn't be notable even if cleaned up. What's next, the local bake sale? Bingo night? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete completely non-notable --Belinrahs (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Personally, I don't believe that this is completely unnotable. Just because a group hasn't been heard of outside of the UK...does that make it unnotable? And this is blatantly more than just a bake sale or bingo night...this is where people's lives are changed. If you think it sounds too much like an advert, then please, help me to make it sound more professional...I'm very new to wikipedia editing. The Tron (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not unnotable simply because it hasn't been heard of outside of the UK--it's unnotable becuase it hasn't been covered in reliable secondary sources (at least that I could find in a brief search). Chuck (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. The page that you refer to also states this - "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also, entering "Planet Youth" into google...the first four hits are directly linked to the organization, as well as five more hits over the following two pages (and that is without limiting the search to "pages from the UK"). The Tron (talk)

- Comment. These still aren't reliable secondary sources, though. It basically needs to have been written about by a third party to substantiate its notability. Regarding the UK-centrism issue: i, the nominator, am from the UK, and indeed from the North of England, where this is located, and i haven't heard of it either. Not, like Chuck said, that it matters. tomasz. 10:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. I still don't understand why this article should be deleted. Considering there is articles on here about nobodies like [John Vaughn], for example, who played a good season of American Football at college but then hasn't been heard from since...why should this article be deemed irrelevant? Do I need to find someone else to write it? I don't work for Planet Youth...they're in my area and I thought they were "notable." The Tron (talk)

- Comment It's not a question of who wrote the article. "There are other articles on Wikipedia on subjects of questionable notability" is generally not a valid argument for articles to be kept--see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Especially when they are very different types--an athlete is hardly comparable to a youth group.) Also "arbitrary standards should not be used" is not the same as "no standards at all should be applied." Requiring a reliable source about an article's subject is a standard, but not an arbitrary one. Show me a reliable source about the group (for example, a newspaper article) and I'll happily change my recommendation to keep. Chuck (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. | Northen Echo article...I hope this is sufficient. The Tron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that article goes beyond a trivial mention. it's mainly about the church being too small for its congregation, mentions in one sentence that the group is held there. tomasz. 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. Here and here are two more articles. Though I doubt I'm going to be able to change any of your minds. - The Tron (talk)

Keep based on these two articles, which do provide external reliable sources. (Although tomasz was correct that the article linked in your earlier comment merely mentioned Planet Youth, it wasn't about Planet Youth.) Also, please remember to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors. Chuck (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written more like a flyer that is promoting the church. Mkeranat (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to me that's a surmountable problem and not a reason for deletion. Chuck (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. If you feel it is written poorly/incorrectly, then take the facts stated in the article and re-write it to how you think it should be written. - The Tron (talk)
Delete Asserts no notability whatsoever. Black Kite 23:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - if you want some stuff from this article to be merged contact me on my talk page--JForget 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is redirected to the university article, so you can have the chance to add whatever content is necessary to the parent article.--JForget 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Students Union[edit]

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Areason for me to nominate this was another user prodded this, but it was removed without a summary, this is the reason why, also I wish people don't come here and wrie as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worcester doesn't look notable to me, but I suggest removing the others from the nomination, possibly nominating them seperately--maybe spread it out over a few days so as not to flood AfD. There's enough difference here that they really should be considered individually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with Starblind, above - block nomination is unhelpful here. — mholland (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: what I'll do is remove all other nomination and list them separately, other than that, I will place a notability tag on some of them. The only snag is, I'm not an administrator, so therefore I not in a positiuon to be able to remove the AFD tags. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - not true. If the reason is legitimate, as it is here, anyone can remove AfD tags. _Talk Islander 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Student union's are inheritently notable. Aside from that as well Knock-Off says "this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else." A lot of student unions have quite notable and quite public squabbles. Those should be included. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. GreenJoe 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nomination will only applies to Worcester Students Union as all others have been withdrawn, hence the strikethrough. Well this edit does not indicate why it is notable, all it does is to promote the SU as if it is a holiday brochure, which the editor forgotten that this is an encyclopedia, not for them to bang on how great their SU is. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think that withdrawn is not correct as they now appear to have been entered as separate nominations. A case of going through a category and nominating all articles in it. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Only one out of the 10 striked nominations above has been re-nomed - the rest have most definitely been withdrawn for now. _Talk Islander 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that the nomination has been pared down, the choice is clear. Non-notable, no reliable sources, and none likely to show up anytime soon: "Worcester Students Union" gets 2 Google News archive hits, both trivial mentions only tangentally related to the club itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily. This article does not assert notability in any way, merely linking to it's own website. I completely disagree that all SUs are inheritently notable - here's a good example of one that is not. _Talk Islander 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main studentunion in a university is a major part of the university, and is notable.DGG (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to assert notability, and is probably not notable part of a former college of FE; can me merged with University of Worcester article without any serious loss. The student officers are but a laundry list of positions. The facilities are generic and the history is pretty pathetic Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed the article is poorly written, but that doesn't mean the subject is not notable. See WP:POTENTIAL. Also, Comment. Of the other articles listed above (and I'm quite aware that they have been withdrawn from this AfD discussion), five were nominated for deletion in December 2007. Four reached no consensus and one had the result of a definite keep! It strikes of bad faith and as an attempt to keep nominating some articles until they're deleted. I can't see any evidence that this was the case here, but I'm sure you can see my concern. Andy (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I want to say, removing nominations on the rest is is no way a bad faith nomination as I have been advised to nominate them separately, which is what I am doing right now. As for today (the date I am posting this), I will be nominating another 2 as suggested later in the day, then the same amount later in the week. Also not to mention that, I never knew of the previous nominations, my pure reason for nominating is because of the article's lack of explained notability and don't forget every colleges and universities have a Student Union, why, because I used to be a university student myself and these articles just do nothing but to use this website to spam their services as if it is a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with other organisations, student unions need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of Hip Hop[edit]

A rumour, not a real album. The article even admits this. Creator removed prod without comment or alteration. tomasz. 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "It has been proven to be only a rumor...", apparently explicitly denied. On the slim chance it ever does happen, the article can always be re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rumor, thus crystal ballery. It even proclaims its a false rumor, as proclaimed in the last paragraph and that's not what Wikipedia's for Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic Feel free to transfer some content there if necessary.--JForget 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic bible[edit]

Appears to be WP:OR on the Qur'an, the term Arabic Bible seems quite a westernised interpretation of the Qur'an so it might now even be a redirect. SGGH ^speak! 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like an essay rather than an encylopaedic article. Googling on mentions of "Arabic bible" on Wikipedia also turned up Final testament, by the same author, with similar tone and lack of sourcing. A quick look at non-Wikipedia Googlable sources suggests "Arabic Bible" may more commonly be used to refer to the Bible used by "Christians in the Arabic world", so I'm not immediately convinced of its value as a redirect to Qur'an. --Sturm 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, essay, no way to reference. This is essentially a neologism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Seems to me as OR. I don't know any reference which uses the term "Arabic bible" to refer to the Qur'an. This article should refer to the Arabic translation of the Bible, and so it would be most appropriate to redirect it to this link. Eklipse (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Redirect. This looks like the clear choice. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Not even any justification for a redirect. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay and redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic. Seems the best way to help the Googlers. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic. You can see my reasons above. --Sturm 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term bible is not restricted to the Christian Bible. It is an English term that refers to any sacred book/holy scriptures. As such, there can be many bibles: Christian/Greek, Muslim/Arabic...etc. they are all bibles. Just as there are many 'chairs' i.e. a red chair, a blue chair, a big chair..etc. they are all chairs. It is a language issue and the word bible can be used to refer to many scriptures as long as you clarify what bible you are referring to i.e. Arabic Muslim Bible or Greek Christian Bible.

A quick search in Collins Dictionary reveals that "Bible" has two meanings. First, the sacred writings of the Christian Religion, and second, any book containing the sacred writings of a religion. However this term is exclusively used for Christian writings and never for the Muslim ones (a quick check at Google and Google Scholar should prove it). Therefore as an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia should redirect this page. Eklipse (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the Tanakh is referred to as the Jewish Bible (see wikipedia), it is linguistically accurate to refer to the Quran as the Muslim Bible. Linguistically, this article is 100% correct. There is nothing non-factual about this article. The link between the Tanakh (Hebrew) & Jewish Bible (English) confirms the accuracy of the link between Quran (Arabic) & Muslim Bible (English). Would you rather that the article name is changed to Muslim Bible, for instance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.3.4 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is an entry in Wikipedia for both Jewish Bible and Hebrew Bible. Both these entries are correct. I understand that from a socio-cultural point of view, it may be strange to see the entries Hindu or Buddhist Bible due to the strong association of the word Bible with Judeo-Christian scripture, but that is not the case with Islam due to the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity (see Wikipedia entries Islam and Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Monotheism). It is accurate to use the terms Arabic Bible and Muslim Bible in the English language when referring to the Quran. It is not accurate to use the the term Arabic Bible when referring to the Arabic translations of the Christian Bible since the Christian Bible is not, by origin, an Arabic scripture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.3.4 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it's a technically correct term is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to introduce new terms or change people's ideas and this is OR. Matt Deres (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR, just uncommon and rejected by many (what is Wikipedia's policy towards uncommon issues that are rejected by some people?). The article has been signigicantly refined since last time for your consideration. It remains a work in progress as references are added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Strong delete - Arabic Bible means the Bible in Arabic, as used by Arabic speaking Christians. The author is trying to hyjack the term as a synonym for the Koran. A redirect to Bible translations would also be acceptable. I have no dount that there are umpteen articles on the Koran already, so that the present text does not need to be preserved in any form. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Warning What if you are trying to hijack the term Arabic bible as a synonym for the old & new testament only? And it seems you are succeeding, when clearly the Quran is an Arabic bible, by origin and by definition. Abrahamic biblical text already exists in Arabic and your position towards that fact is total disregard. It is the only language other than Greek and Hebrew that holds original Abrahamic biblical scripture, and should thus be treated at par with them. Or do I sense some arrogance/bias here?

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive pro wrestling[edit]

Non notable pro wrestling promotion. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Just spamming a website. Sting au Buzz Me... 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another minor and non-notable wrestling promotion/league. There really needs to be a speedy category for these. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Currently the only promotion which recognizes the NWA Australian Championship. I will try to improve the article asap... --Skyhawker666 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Reproduction of previously deleted article via AfD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Explosive_Pro_Wrestling !! Justa Punk !! 07:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as notability is unverified and, evidently, unverifiable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff 'el Jefe' Anderson[edit]

Seemingly non-notable musician. Prod removed by creator. tomasz. 10:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This musician is notable. Article could use work but I hardly think it should be deleted. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any reasons? say, per WP:BAND? i don't see why he's notable. tomasz. 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Just seventeen total Ghits, a few of them this article and mirrors. IS there any reason whatsoever to think this fellow is notable? Many assertions of the bands he has been in and the albums he has made (which allmusic.com has never heard of), but there's no supporting evidence for any of it. Perhaps this fellow is a local session sideman, but that's about it. RGTraynor 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find evidence of his albums being released on a significant record label, but looking here, "Jeff Anderson Enterprises", it's doubtful. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found six very brief mentions of him from the late 1980s and early 1990s in the Austin American Statesman. Most of them just mention that he is performing locally and has a CD out (or is "about to head into the studio"), a few are just performance listings with no other info, and the most extensive one says this:
"IN THE STUDIO: Blues rocker Jeff Anderson will be entering the recording studio for sessions on his second album with John Main, former bassist for Huey Lewis, as producer. Anderson will take his music long distance for the recording, traveling to Studio 56 in Hollywood for the sessions. Anderson's first album, El Jefe, featured accompaniment by the Double Trouble/Arc Angels rhythm section of Chris Layton and Tommy Shannon. The new album will also feature various and sundry guests, possibly including Main, who will join Anderson for several live dates in Texas." July 15 1993, page 4.

I will add the references if the article is kept, but I don't think it's quite enough to pass WP:N. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shinedown's Untitled 3rd Album[edit]

Entirely crystal ball future album article. tomasz. 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pod People (band)[edit]

No sources on the page, prod tag removed for this non-notable band. I couldn't find any sources that show notability for them. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found no sources when looking in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Maybe someone more familiar with Australian sources knows where to look? Delete if no sources turn up. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have heard of them, but I have a fairly specialist knowledge of the scene, and I'm still not that familiar with them. They would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I was the one who originally started this article during the time when I added a lot of information about doom metal and doom metal bands to Wikipedia. In all fairness, this band clearly does not meet the notability criterea, so as far as I am concerned, go ahead and delete it. Joost (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I updated the article. Includes a former member of Blood Duster, criteria #6 in WP:Music 144.110.129.2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a believer in group-to-group inherited notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Twilight[edit]

Non-notable band, no sources provided. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 I see no assertation of notability at all. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. I'd tend to disagree with a speedy, but only because the article is well over six months old. Speedy should be a bit speedier, methinks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any sources in my own searching, and there is not otherwise an indication that this band passes WP:MUSIC so I will say delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted as G4. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone jack wiring[edit]

speedy tag was removed, Wikipedia is not a how-to Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed; the author should have posted this one in his own site or at someone else's site; WP's not a how-to site, you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegripling ph (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Psi Alpha[edit]

Fails WP:ORG, Unreferenced with any WP:RS - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, noindication beyond selt-trumpeting that this has any notability outside of its own walls or those of the university. SGGH ^speak! 09:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my own nom, plus violates WP:UNI's article guidelines on university organizations should not have their own articles. (Comment: Usage of weasel words all throughout article, requires major copyediting if this article is to be kept). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool, lets go deleting all of the other local sorority's and fraternity's wiki pages, surely they have no use outside of their university's walls either. this is my first page and really have nothing better to do at ten to five in the AM. anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailstar87 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately its a local organization and does not meet WP:CORP. Created in good faith I believe TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S Club V[edit]

This article is on a prospective new album from the British pop group S Club (formerly S Club 7), who split up in 2003. There is no indication in Google News either that this group will be recording a new album or that any kind of reunion is planned at all. This may simply be the result of an online rumour, in which case it fails WP:CRYSTAL, but either way, it appears to be unverifiable. Sturm 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not happening. There aren't even any rumours about this, and I visit a lot of S Club sites. I'd treat it as vandalism and delete asap. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced original research. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already redirected, pending completion of discussion at Talk:Kosovo.Not really an afd matter, not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grutness (talk • contribs)

Republic of Kosovo[edit]

Right now, there are two almost identical articles about Kosovo, i.e. Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo, the latter was created recently with material from Kosovo in an attempt to split the article about Kosovo. There seems to be only little support for the split of the Kosovo article (see: Talk:Kosovo#Split.3F). I'd therefore suggest that Republic of Kosovo be piped and merged (no need as it is identical) with Kosovo and accordingly be deleted. --Camptown (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merge and redirect), as per nom. --Camptown (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely silly. Will ^(talk) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, redirect pending the split discussion at Talk:Kosovo. Not a valid Afd, recommend speedy closure. Submitting user is also trolling the {{split}} discussion on Talk:Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Gugganij (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hús ö nd 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, reasonable search term, no reason to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per dab. This AfD is just a ridiculous move intended to push a POV. The nominator has made his bias clear in the talk page on Kosovo. A split needs to happen, preferably with Kosovo being a disambiguation page leading to an article on Kosovo as a region and as a nation, but the person who did split the article did so inappropriately.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new state doesn't automatically own the English word "Kosovo", that can only be established by years of usage that we don't have any evidence of yet. See China vs. People's Republic of China or Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland. Kosovo should redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) until such time as it becomes standard practice in the English language to shorthand Republic of Kosovo to Kosovo (and not Kosava which I imagine the new Albanian-speaking government with start to push). Keep in mind the new state isn't the only entity ever called Kosovo (e.g. Republic of Kosova (1990–2000), Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974), or Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire. Can we really be so bold as to assume everyone typing in Kosovo wants to know about a state only a month old and not the other 1000 years of history of that region? Kevlar67 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has been redirected to Kosovo. Discussion should be closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is an ongoing discussion, on Talk:Kosovo. No need to drag it to AfD. dab (𒁳) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you want to merge these, AfD is not the right place to discuss it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets[edit]

List taken from boxofficeindia.com. Somebody needs to look at this site and keep updating this article.. Anshuk (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion - virtually all of our articles have to be updated as new information comes out about our subjects (Wikipedia isn't printed on paper). The list is not a copyvio as implied, and while it could be merged (for example to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, also nominated for the same reason), there are other more appropriate venues to discuss this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the three that the nominator nominated for deletion need to be merged together. The Dominator (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (although I think I prefer the look of the table in this particular list). --Pixelface (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you want to merge these, AfD is not the right place to discuss it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films throughout history[edit]

List taken from boxofficeindia.com. Somebody needs to look at this site and keep updating this article.. Anshuk (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion - virtually all of our articles have to be updated as new information comes out about our subjects (Wikipedia isn't printed on paper). The list is not a copyvio as implied, and while it could be merged (for example to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, also nominated for the same reason), there are other more appropriate venues to discuss this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the three that the nominator nominated for deletion need to be merged together. The Dominator (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. --Pixelface (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you want to merge these, AfD is not the right place to discuss it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films[edit]

List taken from boxofficeindia.com and ibosnetwork.com. Somebody needs to look at these sites and keep updating this article.. Anshuk (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion - virtually all of our articles have to be updated as new information comes out about our subjects (Wikipedia isn't printed on paper). The list is not a copyvio as implied. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the three that the nominator nominated for deletion need to be merged together. The Dominator (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. How does this list even manage to exist on an encyclopedia such as Wiki? The article itself states Box office figures in India are not official, as there is no official source. - if there is no official, reliable source, then the entire article is put together from unreliable, unofficial sources. Such content should not be put on Wikipedia. aJCfreak yAk 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tone down the references to boxofficeindia. I'm sure other references could be found for this information. There is a similar article, List of top Bollywood films (with no citations) that this list could maybe be merged with, but that can be discussed after the AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason proffered for deletion. RGTraynor 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 01:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films[edit]

This is a list taken from boxofficemojo.com. Needs to be maintained over time. Isn't this free advertising for this site? Anshuk (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent article which gives no undue prominence to boxofficemojo.com. It is our policy to cite sources so articles should not criticised for doing so. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Box Office Mojo is a good source but it's not the only source for this kind of information. It can be found at IMDb, The-Numbers.com, and many other places. This article in no way advertises any websites. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion - virtually all of our articles have to be updated as new information comes out about our subjects (Wikipedia isn't printed on paper). The list is not a copyvio as implied, nor is it advertising as previously discussed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's so difficult to maintain about this article??? The three Bollywood things you nominated need to be merged though. The Dominator (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it is the primary source doesn't mean it's advertising. And go delete the whole Category:Best sellers then. igordebraga ≠ 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although it might be advertising, it's a good list.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article with useful information. The text portion of the article could use a little expansion, but it is valuable nonetheless.Tomanyletters (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - even today I was looking for the information covered in this article for my academic work... And I found this AfD :) Pundit|utter 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lisa Donovan[edit]

The result was Keep. New York Times and Der Spiegel asserts notability. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable internet actress. Does not satisfy WP: BIO or WP:INTERNET RogueNinja_talk 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the last AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LisaNova RogueNinja_talk 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RogueNinja_talk 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - She is one of the most popular youtube personalities and was a cast member of MadTV at one point. She had an article written about her in the NYT. She does meet WP:INTERNET criteria. Some of the other YT personalities that have entries on WP are far less popular and noteworthy than her. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per nominator's reasoning? The nominator didn't give any reasoning except links to guidelines with absolutely no content as to why they think this topic fails those guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a few references, and the NYT one does satisfy WP:RS. A single ref may be considered trivial, but three of the other refs are debatable (zap2it, movieweb, and adweek). Yngvarr (c) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Yngvarr; involvement in MADTV seems to be sufficient for notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might also suggest that this page be moved to Lisa Donovan (actress) or something, since there was also a singer by that name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the history of the internet is just as important as real life. The development of the Youtube community is an important part of the internet as a whole. STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the primary subject of New York Times and Der Spiegel articles [29] [30] alone easily satisfy WP:BIO. The nom has given no credible reason (actually no reason at all) as to why they think this person doesn't pass WP:BIO. Interestingly, she got on MadTV after the first AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May have been iffy last time, but a pretty clear keep now. Hopefully people will watchlist it and keep out some of the problem edits. I think a move is advised; we don't have an article on the Lisa Donovan who's a singer, but we do have Elisa Donovan, whose birth name is Lisa, so that makes three to disambiguate (with a redlink). --Dhartung | Talk 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the New York Times and Der Spiegel articles are evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). Further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (musician)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one makes for a difficult search because of frequent hits for Rose, but using the search strategy of including his old band name, I found nothing on Google News archives and nothing in searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete if no sources are provided before the end of this deletion discussion. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (WP:CSD#A7). barneca (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cacd[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharlinie[edit]

Wikipedia is not a public webspace. Wikipedia is not a networking service. Wikipedia is not the Center for Lost Children. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:CSD#A7 at 08:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phua Tzai Wei[edit]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, recreate if sources can be found and cited. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Battersby[edit]

Fails WP:N (after 32 years, there's not even a press article on this person found on Google), WP:BLP, WP:RS, and this article looks like an advertisement for all of the organizations this person seems to belong to. (note my earlier prod tag was removed) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politicians are inherently non-notable without significant press coverage. This is not the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'smells of a cv transcribed' Satu Suro 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have a very difficult time believing that somebody who has been a municipal councillor in a 100,000+ municipality would not meet WP:N, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of coverage here. Perhaps an editor from there could provide some offline sources? In any event, no prejudice against re-creation with third party references. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, I used to live in the area. There is an election in a merged LGA, which includes what is currently Pine Rivers Shire, in a matter of weeks. It is likely to be a bloodbath, as minor local politicians like Battersby compete for a vastly reduced pool of councillor seats. The recent creation of this article would indicate to me that this is possibly an attempt to raise Mr Battersby's profile to maximise his chances of success. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, as non-notable local politician. No sources or references found to indicate that he's particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

~~'•'Reply I created the article as a first article to hone skills in wiki but at the same time feel free to delete if it is required~~

~~•BB is one of the longest serving councillors in australia and has a park and a field named after him~~

~~•My apologies for no editing i will endeavor to bring my skills up to grade PTCQLD 10:50 5 March 2008~~

Reply to Lankiveil, BB is competing for the newly formed Division 10 with one other candidate (Martinez i think) it will be close not a bloodbath and after 32 years he does have a high profile in the area and has been featured on the ABC's stateline program as well as interviews with radio stations, although i am pro BB i still maintain him being one of the longest serving councillors is why i thought he would be worthy of a wiki link to his own page.PTCQLD (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)PTCQLD[reply]

Delete, as if my nomination didn't make things clear. If this is your first article, please bring [your] skills up to grade by utilizing the WP:SANDBOX. More sources are definitely needed for this article to survive from WP:RS, and of course, not just to say this person exist, but demonstrate actual WP:N as described in WP:BLP. Please do not turn a deletion of article discussion into a political one. It is not what we're discussing here. User:PTCQLD, I suggest you learn the Wikipedia syntax as well, as pasting a bullet symbol and adding random equal symbols everywhere does not work around here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, again my apologies, I can assure you that this is in no way meant to be political even though the topic is of that nature, that again is due to inexperience and in no way meant to compromise this discussion.I am taking your advice and Bringing [my] skills up to grade.Sorry for any inconvenience to you - Jameson L. Tai. PTCQLD (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Citing WP:BIO.Under Heading 2, Section 2.3, paragraph 2, This man is Deputy Mayor and occasional acting Mayor, has a Centenary Medal which was presented to him by the Federal member for the area, for services to the community through local government and welfare organizations, on behalf of the then Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which can be verified on the Australian Government website relating to Centenary Medals, has a sporting field named after him at the corner of Bunya Rd and Jinker Track,Ferny Hills, has a park named after him in Ferny Hills, and although I would assume with some research that after 32 years in office would have many articles relating to him published.He has also been featured in an ABC program called Stateline and had numerous interviews on local radio. I will concede that the level of distribution for these articles may not be at a national level but at a state and provincial level. Currently I can only find one other local councillor with more time in office (although since has passed away ,total 35 yrs in office).Has helped shaped what will become Australia's 3rd largest municipal council and one of the worlds fastest growing regions. PTCQLD (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Lack of WP:N and a lack of WP:RS still does not excuse this article from being deleted. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, PTC, if you can find the reliable sources to assert this thing, I will help you to integrate them into the article and perhaps change my !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Reply,Thankyou for the offer Lankiveil, I may not be able to within the next few days but may try again at a later date. PTCQLD (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most AfDs are closed in about five days, I suggest User:PTCQLD save a copy in case of a closing admin decides to delete the article. You will not be able to retrieve the article content afterwords. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Mr. Tai's suggestion, although I note that there are many admins, including myself, who are willing to provide editors with copies of deleted articles (provided, of course, that these are not used abusively by being reposted into the mainspace without substantial improvement). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated ~~the~~ my response here and also the article as wellPTCQLD (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reread article and placed three article tags based off of current revision. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several things wrong with this article:

Blatant copyright violation: Completely ripped off of the article's reference page "Councillor Battersby has been a Councillor since 1976 and is currently a member of the following Council Standing Committees and Advisory Boards: Co-ordination Committee Corporate Operations Committee Strategic & Planning Committee Disaster Management Group"
Unreferenced material:

"In 2001 Brian was awarded with a Centenary Medal for service to the community through local government and welfare organizations."
"Brian Battersby has been married to wife Lorraine for 43 years and has two daughters, Karen and Tammy." (Citing most probable to WP:OR)

Still has not resolved WP:N through more WP:RS. The one source this article is based off of is a WP:RS#TRIVIAL. WP:BLP guidelines must be met for all Wikipedia Biographies on Living Persons. And until these problems are fixed, this article still has grounds for deletion. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for all your help, I will do my best to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTCQLD (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing my name, i have added again to the article and will ahve some more information hopefully soonPTCQLD (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Brian Battersby's website does not qualify as a WP:RS. Please reread this standard and update the article's references as necessary. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Zaza[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, will change answer when I there are at least five WP:RS which satisfies WP:BLP guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources present. I suspect there are none. I was unable to confirm the existence of this person or his corporations, which leads me to believe that some of the finer details of this article may have been unintentionally embellished somewhat by the author. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a total hoax or absurd exaggeration. If it were true, there'd be plenty of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Philippines Guitar Orchestra[edit]

non-notable organization within a university, does not meet WP:CLUB, speedy-tag was removed counter to WP guidelines Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per original CSD nominator. I nominated original text for speedy on WP:CSD#A7 as well as direct copyright copy-and-paste infringement of a multiply.com site. Removal of the copyrighted material now warrants an AfD. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable UP organization. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to find sources; I'm sure there must be some. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Starczamora (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:BIO for athletes is clear here. This can always be resuscitated when if/when he plays his first professional game (whether it be for Arsenal, Macclesfield or whoever.) Black Kite 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rodgers (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Crystal balling saved this article in the last AfD, but those predictions have thus far failed. Delete and recreate if Rodgers goes on to make a league appearance. robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is a full professional, an England youth international and a registered first-team squad member for one of the largest clubs in the world. [31] The point of WP:ATHLETE is to prevent non-notable amateurs from inclusion or players without a professional contract from being included, not players at the highest level who are about to break through. Qwghlm (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Until he has done so there remains the chance that he will never actually make an appearance and disappear into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - no apps in a professional league even if he does has a pro contract--Egghead06 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no first team appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/Notability. The speculation that he is about to break through into the first team is irrelevant (WP:CRYSTAL), youth caps do not confer notability (Olympics excepted) playing in pre-season friendlies and having a contract/squad number neither. If he ever plays at professional level the article can easily be recreated. English peasant 10:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn BanRay 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep he is a professional young player of England. Since he plays in Arsenal, he is much better than players i suppose in Blakpool FC. Plus he is still very young and will still have a chance to shine. Maybe he will be the next John Terry of England. Since he is playing in the U-19 England, he should definitely shine. Of course with all those French and other World Cup Defenders, he can't start right now. Just wait several years and see what happens with him. --Shustfan (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a whole lot of crystal balling going on there....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep he plays for the Under-19 England team, so he will be and already is a notable player in English and World football. He should definitely stay. --Boguslav (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete^ It can always be remade once he is notable. Has one link (a PDF file I can't open). And I was wondering: How do we know when to make a decision on keep or delete (reply on my talk page)? Thanks. Mm40 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. See Nathan Delfouneso's most recent AfD. Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armesis[edit]

Non-notable unpublished book Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Series under construction - WP:Crystal. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very long focal length crystal ball (2010 first publication). Only related google hit is this article. Completely unnoted in the wider world - Peripitus (Talk) 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystall-ballery. Twenty Years 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, and not really verifiable either (as its not even finished yet) - for all we know this is a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete As much as I'd like to assume good faith, the creator of this page has a history of unconstructive/hoax contributions in Wikipedia. Combine that with the fact that there are no references for this article and nothing about this series can be found on Google, all we can conclude is that this doesn't exist. Even if we took the information in the article at face value it's still an article about a series not even written yet. -- Atama ^chat 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powers Court[edit]

The article is completely promotional from start to finish and would require a near-complete rewrite to become objective. Notability of the subject is also questionable. Dethme0w (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, then redirect to Powerscourt. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of notability. I disagree that it qualifies as spam though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "This is really a fine band, highly recommended." Sure looks like spam. tomasz. 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom and as non-notable. tomasz. 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio of [32]. If it sounds like a real estate ad, it probably is one. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Hills, Austin, Texas[edit]

Notability issues. This article should be merged into the Austin, Texas article. Unreferenced, uncategorized. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was in the midst of creating same tag; edit conflict, you win. No notability, article is pretty much entirely POV, any redeemable material can just be incorporated into Austin, TX article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchville, Queensland[edit]

Notability issues - the Rockhampton, Queensland page lists all the suburbs of Rockhampton, however only a few link to a separate page for that suburb. Not all suburbs need a separate page, what is the notability reason for this suburb having its own page. This page merely lists population details. FatDaks (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cannot see a valid deletion reason in the nomination - I can see significant mentions in a number of books available via google scholar - Easy keep of an encyclopaedic subject - Peripitus (Talk) 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no basis for this nomination.--Grahame (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peripitus. Settlements are generally notable. Locations of comparable notability in Norway, e.g. Åsane, have entries in paper encyclopedias. (I don't know what notability standards are used for Australian encyclopedias.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the risk of WP:ALLORNOTHING, just about all the suburbs of Melbourne, where I live, have their own pages. StAnselm (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Twenty Years 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real, verifiable suburbs and places are notable. This is one such place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:N and I didn't know it could snow in Rockhampton. Sting au Buzz Me... 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$hfmig s[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable Windows folder. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article with no clear claim to notability. I can find no relevant Google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, pure trivia. Little could be written about this topic and I submit that it could not be extended to form a proper article. We do not have a history of having articles on directories in operating systems as a general rule, and certainly not ones that are not part of the normal user experience but are instead a detail of internal implementation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the folder name is worth mentioning at all it can be mentioned at Windows Update, it doesn't need its own page. But there's no point redirecting as this article gets the name wrong anyway – the folder in question is called $hf_mig$ not "$hfmig_s" or "$hfmig s". [33] Qwfp (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We definitely don't need articles on Windows directories, particularly ones that are hidden by the system for very good reasons. Permanent sub-stub, recommend against merging or mentioning in other articles as it would be pure trivia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per... well... just delete it. I'm surprised it didn't get CSD'd on sight because of the name. flaming lawyer^c 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be useful to have an article with the Windows equivalent of Filesystem Hierarchy Standard---a single, encyclopedic article listing the directories like $hfmig_s and its ilk, some of which might have noteworthy uses. Obviously we don't want an article on each such directory, just as we don't want an article on /var/spool/mail, but the general existence of these directories on millions of computers makes them noteworthy IMO. Bm gub (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with no opinions to delete. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Party[edit]

Article does not cite any sources, and hasn't been touched since its creation more than 15 months ago. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- important historical cadre; subject of an entire book. Needs expansion, not deletion. Jfire (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, that's a memoir. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per above. This is an important part of British Parliamentary history and has been the subject of political science reviews. [34] [35] ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion and sources. matt91486 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple more sources to give it context. There's obviously a whole series of events where they played a role. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: I'll withdraw my nomination. Thanks to Jfire and Dhartung for adding to the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thirteen Horses. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Horses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Patent WP:OR and mystical nonsense. Some references, but they all seem to relate to horses in general, or at best horses in mythology. But I can't find any reference to 13 horses. Prod tag was removed by author, so I'm bringing it here. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdminPlease close this AFD. I created it at the same time as user:WarthogDemon. Apologies for the inconvenience. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Horses[edit]

Prodded but removed by creator. Looks bogus and/or original research. Couldn't find anything about it elsewhere. Sources seem to provide no real information. -WarthogDemon 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patent OR and mystical nonsense. Some references, but they all seem to relate to horses in general, or at best horses in mythology. But I can't find any reference to 13 horses. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is truly as sad day when a user who clearly has limited knowledge of animal mythology, given the voluminous material available in print and in Google Scholar (see added references!) merely cites “Couldn't find anything about it elsewhere”. At a minimum, based on the time the article was first posted and the time of the deletion prod, the user who is prompting the deletion spent very little time attempting to “find anything” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahatfield (talk • contribs) — Tahatfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I did check your references. Nowhere there does it mention "13" and "horses" together in any context. Furthermore, the "very little time" you mention between the article's creation and my afding it is exactly 40 minutes and 1 second. -WarthogDemon 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research apparently not supported by its own sources. It does not follow that because there is symbolism associated with the number 13, and symbolism associated with horses, that therefore there must be symbolism associated with "thirteen horses". If there is, the article has not established that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While references could probably be dug up as to the mythical/cultural significances of the number thirteen and of horses, even then this article would be nothing more than a novel synthesis, which fails No Original Research anyway. Dethme0w (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research, not an established concept. Sources do not seem to actually address the supposed topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If you liked the Four Horsemen of Death, here are nine more friends. Interesting that 13 horses symbolize 8 qualities. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's filled with original research and it's an essay, which Wikipedia isn't the place for. Its own sources don't even back it up. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Removal of prod-tag was scarcely valid, in any case! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several references appear to specifically reference "13 horses" In talking with several artists in the area I have found that they acknowledge the influence of the "thirteen horses" I believe it would be extremely premature to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.75.253 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Based on the above "delete" statements, it appears that Wikipedia may be lacking topical coverage in several areas due to the limited knowledge of the above "delete" users. This is a serious problem for Wikipedia and following the advice given above will only continue the narrow coverage. See article: An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 429–440 ª 2008 International Communication Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.75.253 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) — 216.237.75.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Say, do you two guys know each other? Mandsford (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be there are no direct references to be found in English, as "13 horses" is an ancient symbol in Northern and Central Europe, in German "13 Perde" and in French "13 chevaux" references are to be found. Pelas13 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) — Pelas13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please feel free to provide foreign language references if you have some good ones. Some of us can read German and/or French. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to French sources: http://www.livre-pamiers.com/nomades.htm http://www.jedecouvrelafrance.com/f-3025.haut-rhin-colmar-musee-unterlinden.html Pelas13 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-notable unsourced theory at best. Edward321 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be original research, hard to make any sense of it all really. Also, "several artists in the area" is not a reliable source. Beeblbrox (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While the current entry is a bit chaotic it contains some extremely accurate information. Research of several off line references indicate that "thirteen horses" is a valid verifiable reference to inspiration, self awareness and social focus in many cultures. Strongly implore users to search university librarys in areas of Native American and Asian mythology and culture. The Hopi medicine path addresses the thirteen horses directly. There are also references to numbers of horses as meaning to glyphs in SW America and early european art. Specifically, users should search "horse mysticism" and "horse imagery". From area of Texas the concept of Yo-he-wah, "spirit of grass" has also been studied and the number thirteen and horses is suggested to be associated with symbols. There are several references to horse handling secrets in what is now NM which include reference to thirteen horses as a "symmetry" which involves "three insights into the four directions" with the seer being central. The center supposedly represents the thirteenth horse and alignment with the actual horse being interacted with. There appears to be scarce information online with exact phase "thirteen horses", but there are several associated references in work done by the Epona Society. What is kind of exciting is that the image of "wotan's cross" involve "thirteen" as part of four directions. Each triangle in the cross results in twelve lines with the outside and thirteenth ring (line) being present. I am still researching the horse connection, but there appears to be a strong one. It is very concerning that the delete entrys seem to relate to online information only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.74.192 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seem to notice that all of the "keep" votes are coming from users who are either random ISPs or have made no contributions outside of the article. I'm getting suspicious that at least a few of them are sockpuppets of the original creator of the article, for instance the fact that someone at the same ISP voted twice (even if it is a shared ISP of a school or something, one vote per random ISP or otherwise create an account, which the original creator has seem to have done, several times). Anyway, it's just my opinion, its unfounded for now, but its really suspicious. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm new to Wikipedia, but "dreizehn Pferde" is part of European Mythology and fairy tales. References: [36] (in German) [37] (in German) 85.1.164.172 (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — 85.1.164.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment nothing in those links shows that thirteen horses has any mythic significance, let alone the symbolism claimed in the article. Edward321 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admittedly the the first link contains the phrase "dreizehn Pferde" but is a story entitled (translated) The Thirteen Brothers. The second link does NOT contain any of the words dreizehn, 13, Pferd, Pferde, Ross or Rösser so can't see how that helps the case, even tangentially. SpinningSpark 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The titel in the first fairy tale is indeed "The thirteen brothers", but thirteen horses are an integral, important part of the story. The second story "The Brenta flower" is taking place in Padua, the race with thirteen horses is sybolic: "Dreizehn Pferde waren es, welche um den Preis laufen sollten. Große auf ihre Hüften gemalte Nummern bezeichneten sie; Flittern und Rauschgold raschelte glitzernd in den mit Band durchflochtenen Mähnen." Please check the link again. Here is a third link [38] (in German) Thirteen horses are part of European Mythology and Fairy Tales. 83.77.244.237 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, equal in weight of arguments from both sides --JForget 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable minor villian. No WP:RS mention, fails WP:N Bestmanforthegob (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the nomination to link to Ringer (comics), which appears to be the intent, rather than the disambiguation page Ringer. Jfire (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable enough to have been brought back to life after dying, have a second persona, then a second person as the original persona, and an Ultimate version. All told at least a couple dozen appearances, including several as the main focus of the issue. If this were a one-issue wonder I'd say delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's brief edit history concerns me. Character is notable as having been part of a major storyline involving a vigilante murdering supervillains; this character's death occured during a large-scale massacre that served as the climax of said storyline, which led Captain America to catch the formerly untracable murderer. Also, as stated above, he was "resurrected" and also had a version in Marvel's Ultimate line. Article has no OOU text at the moment, but I plan to rememdy that as I did with the Plunderer (which was decided as a Keep) and the Melter. BOZ (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:N. Last time I checked multiple appearences doesn't satisfy WP:N nor does helping out Captain America. If sources show up, I'll change my vote. Bestmanforthegob (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be important questions to ask about such middle-rank comics characters, in relation to WP:FICT (and I know I have spoken to various people about this as a lot of the lower level and mid level characters should probably be merged into a characters entry) but I think that requires a broader debate. Deletion is a poor interim solution and, as the entry looks solid enough, I am voting to keep it, at least until the broader issues can be addressed and resolved (not dealt with piecemeal like this) - at which point we might want to return to this. (Emperor (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not sure how a merge would work: the Marvel universe is huge, with many thousands of characters: as of the mid-80s they published a universe guide which ran to about 10 volumes of fairly thick paperback books. A similar work today would be at least twice or even three times that, and that isn't even counting offshoot universes like the Ultimate Marvel, the Mangaverse, 2099, New Universe, etc. And Marvel obviously isn't the only comics company out there, either. A list of characters would probably be enormous. Yes, one could break it down like List of Spider-Man villains and so forth, but that gets into muddy waters as well, as most villains aren't exclusive to a single hero or title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general plan would be to merge them to a list as can be seen starting at List of DC Comics characters, although it might need more fine-grained divisions (A-Ad, perhaps). It'd basically be a longer multi-page version of the examples given on WP:FICT, e.g. Characters of Carnivàle, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, etc. and the name would then redirect to the section. Things like the DC characters list is fairly solid and as detailed as you'd ever want so you could get a reasonable idea of how to break it down further. List of Marvel Comics characters is less extensive but the category should give us an idea of existing entries. It may also be that we'd want to transwiki some of the entries to more detailed wikis so we can link on to them too. That is how you'd do it - it'd need a bit of planning and a lot of hands on to make sure everything is edited together right but it is doable. The bottom line is that a lot of these comic characters are either not notable or are right on the edge. I don't feel deleting them is the way to go - transwiking is certainly one way but the WP:FICT-approved approach would be a transwiki (if needed) and slotting them into character lists. In the end it is a case of use it or lose it as people are always going to be nominating such border-line characters as this (and there are worse out there) and they will be gradually picked off and the whole thing gets messy. There is a broader solution that allows us to keep the bulk of the information. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - Note this broader issue is being discussed on the Comics Project talk page. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The Ringer is a minor villain, but has had appearances in several issues of multiple titles. There isn't a WP:RS issue here as primary sources are reliable sources. Nonetheless, the article would be improved by secondary sources. As for notability, the character has appeared in notable titles from a major comics publisher, so there is some inherent notability. As a worst case scenario, I could see the character being relegated to a list of minor villains and the current information summarized, but it wouldn't be my first choice. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what is meant by reliable sources! Lord Uniscorn (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no real-world notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this character has appeared in several notable comic book titles. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no outside sources = not notable. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor, sure, but the character and his death have had a signifigant influence on the ongoing in-story actions of several more notable villains, including some former members of the Thunderbolts and the Sinister Six. --Noclevername (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are a lot less notable things on this site than the Ringer, besides he was "notable" enough to be replaced :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- This article could certainly be improved but I would think the fact that there have been multiple versions, including a recent ultimate appearance would make the character notable enough Palendrom (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yes, it does seem perverse for a player who will undoubtedly play professionally for someone at some point (even if it's not Arsenal), but WP:BIO is clear and we can't predict the future. Should he pass that test, please contact myself or any admin to have the article undeleted immediately. Black Kite 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hoyte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Player has never played at a professional level. Friendly matches and youth international appearances do not meet criteria per WP:Athlete and WikiProject Football notability. Nothing stating that he will likely make an appearance any time soon, and such speculation would fail WP:CRYSTAL.

Delete as nom. crassic\^talk 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the article have a PROD template on it rather than AfD...........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this AfD can not have a legitimate outcome if the article does not have the AfD template on it. English peasant 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to be sorted now....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I sorted it before I !voted. English peasant 10:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was my mistake. Thank you for fixing it. crassic\^talk 12:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no professional level appearances as yet, IMO should never have been kept last time. If he hasn't even broken in to the Arsenal Carling Cup team yet, he's probably not in the next batch of youngsters queueing up to break in to the first team either. - fchd (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Until he has done so there remains the chance that he will never actually make an appearance and disappear into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no first team appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/Notability. Speculation that he is about to break through into the first team is irrelevant (WP:CRYSTAL), youth caps do not confer notability (Olympics excepted) playing in pre-season friendlies and having a contract/squad number neither. The Gavin Hoyte#Arsenal career statistics section says it all. If he ever plays at professional level the article can easily be recreated. I am also unsure about the validity of the hidden message at the top of the page instructing admins not to delete it, is this good practice? I think it should be deleted. English peasant 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - he has signed a full professional contract, [39] played for England U17s at the FIFA U-17 World Cup,[40] and been given a first-team squad number at Arsenal. [41]. He has been named on the substitute's bench for three matches (FA Cup v. Blackburn Rovers [42], Football League Cup v. Newcastle United [43] and Sheffield United [44]) but has not played. He has also been profiled extensively on Arsenal's and The Football Association's websites [45] [46] both of which are significant coverage in my view. Qwghlm (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arsenal website isn't an independent source, though....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note under-17 caps do not confer notability, sitting on the bench and watching and recieving a squad number do not confer notability either according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN. If he makes his debut the article can be undeleted straight away. As it stands now it doesn't meet the criteria. English peasant 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Receiving a squad number does not mean he is notable. See the squad template, as three other players with numbers do not have Wikipedia pages (#44 Ogogo, #45 Dunne, and #47 Steer) - likely due to notability issues. crassic\^talk 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reversal of deletion in this document was for understandable reasons, but the decision does not appear to have been made in keeping with the razor of the agreed criteria. This case has been cited many times in argument for the retention of articles that do not meet the criteria, and inappropriate precedents should not be allowed to stand. Kevin McE (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is a foregone conclusion but he has appeared on Arsenal's bench for the Carling Cup on multiple occasions, and he'll have an article again anyway as he's bound to embark on a league career. Esteffect (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When did he appear in the Carling Cup? He may have appeared on the bench... crassic\^talk 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "he's bound to embark on a league career". That's a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know he may break his leg in training tomorrow and never play again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Fails WP:BIO, though I do think this could be one of the cases were we use common sense and keep it, as one of the highest profile WP:FOOTYN-failing players. John Hayes^talk 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:ATHLETE he meets the criteria - the FA Premier Reserve League is, de facto, fully professional, and he has appeared in same. He has represented his country. Qwghlm helpfully points to some relevant references, particularly on the FA website. Hoyte also had a lengthy biographical article featured in Four Four Two, the copy of which I can't place for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eborbuses (talk • contribs)
- Comment - as a reserve league, the FA Premier Reserve League is outside the English football pyramid, and therefore appearances made do not confer notability. robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No first team appearances. Ck12 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and пﮟოьεԻ 57. robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of reserve/youth team fixtures, England youth team appearances and sitting on the bench for the main team surmount to notability, and without non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources he doesn't pass WP:N. If he does play a first team appearance then no prejudice against recreation (although I don't think anyone would contest that). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Being on the bench or getting a squad number butters no parsnips. If, for example, we gave him an article then he gets a career-ending injury we get stuck with a page on someone who has done nothing notable. TerriersFan (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. See Nathan Delfouneso's most recent AfD. Struway2 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nandesuka (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Megas (band)[edit]

Non-notable band - searching doesn't turn up any reliable independent coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about IGN Music? Isn't this a reliable independent coverage? I searched on google and found this: http://music.ign.com/articles/787/787795p1.html Alby13 (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two members of the band, Mike Levinson and Greg Schneider, were members of Agent 51, a notable band according to Wikipedia's standards. Meets WP:MUSIC. Alby13 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it has gone to the trouble to list sources. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the "sources" are reliable. The IGN reference isn't even about the band, it makes a fleeting reference to The Megas at the bottom of the article in association to a completely different artist. No one is questioning whether the band exists, but whether they are notable. According to what I've seen, they are not. I'm sorry, but these citations are fluff. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So we just need more opinions on whether the sources are reliable or not. Alby13 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a manner of speaking, yes. However, if other editors disagree with those who are in favor of delete, the onus lies with them to demonstrate exactly how and why the sources are reliable. As I currently see it, they are not. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.vgfrequency.com/the-megas-release-debut-arrangement-album-get-equipped/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_51 The first one is more coverage and the second one is one of our articles that mentions the band agent 51, it even mentions the megas. http://thasauce.net/modules.php?name=NewsTwo&file=article&sid=741 That one is a prominent online news site for the gaming community. Metalman21 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually WP:AGF, but bear in mind that the above user's only contribution is a keep in this discussion. Second of all, just reiterating what is already present in the article doesn't do anything in the way of convincing me of notability sanctification. A gaming portal, in and of itself, is not reliable. It's certainly usable as a reference I suppose, but it's not demonstrable of notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the fact that 2 members are former members of a notable band qualifies this for inclusion. Deschain1 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the fact that 2 members of The Megas are former members of a notable band qualifies this for inclusion. Also, the sources in my opinion are valid and help qualify the band as notable. Breeding (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Breeding[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Country Club Estates, California[edit]

There is no populated place by this name according to USGS/GNIS, US Census Bureau's American Fact Finder, Mapquest, superpages.com, or USPS. Looking at the 24 Ghits, it seems like it only exists on plat maps, and/or possibly some homebuilder-placed sign near a cluster of homes they built near the Marin Country Club. Shawis (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks to be just a subdivision. y'am'can (wtf?) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I used to live in Novato; never heard of this place, pretty sure it's just a non-notable neighborhood. faithless (^speak) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep-it's an unincorporated area according to google maps, and even if it where a neighborhood, all neighborhoods are notable, especially one of just clear boundaries and naming —Preceding unsigned comment added by W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements contract[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary,legal or othrwise Standatoms1985 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is not a dicdef, as there is much more to it than a mere definition. I also note that you have just created this account within the past hour, and yet all of your edits are nominations of articles for deletion, with reasoning that I feel fails to comprehend the proper basis for deleting articles. I strongly suggest that you invest some time into creating and improving content in order to get a better sense of what is properly subject to deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, article goes far beyond WP:DICDEF, although it could use some sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious keep, well referenced. matt91486 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could do with some sourcing and clean-up to make it more accessible to a lay audience TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite strongly. I'd be inclined to close this early if no actual delete votes are forthcoming; a brief glance at the article in question is enough to show that it is more than a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and expand per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer survivors[edit]

OR and random list, never possible to complete. Standatoms1985 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about cancer survivors in general. I've replaced the "random" list with a link to the Cancer survivors category[47], which should resolve original research concerns.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, a good and useful article with substantial room for expansion of discussion of the general concept. bd2412 T 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, needs some sourcing as already identified by the {{fact}} tags, but that's not a reason for deletion as it appears to be sourceable (? is that a word?) material. Good call on the category link, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back as I think that makes it cleaner than the original incomplete list. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Viable topic. Maybe add some statistics and the like, what cancers have more survivors, etc. Suggest change of title to "Cancer survival". 23skidoo (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't believe that this article was intended to be about prognosis. It's about a political/personal identity issue: are you a "cancer survivor" or a "cancer patient"? Prognosis is already addressed in the main Cancer article and, in greater detail, in articles about individual diseases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nominator misunderstands WP:ONEEVENT. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 New York Philharmonic visit to North Korea[edit]

Wikipedia is not news, the two entities are notale - but this event WP:ONEEVENT. Pure news. Standatoms1985 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is a big difference between news and an important diplomatic event. See Ping Pong Diplomacy that is a similar event. Grsz11 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per User:Grsz11. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable event with implications that surpass the news aspect alone. bd2412 T 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Agreed w/ User:Grsz11 and User:BD2412. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obviously historic event. WP:ONEEVENT actually does not apply to articles about events, but to articles about individuals; you may want to read guidelines before citing them. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TIME called it "historic." Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if TIME isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is. If that article is cited here, this case should be closed. Grsz11 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kuh[edit]

Not notable: no sources ABOUT this person are provided, just sources that reference him. The article has other issues, such as low constructive editing activity and few pages that link to it. Croctotheface (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False (e.g. http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1456) and this is a man with over 15 world records and an extensive role in a major US documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.34.128 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that site would be considered a reliable source or not. Not sure what you mean by "extensive" or whether that's really the test so much as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which I just don't see for this person. Also, this anonymous account appears to be an SPA. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does have significant, reliable sourcing and the Guiness Book of World Records uses Twin Galaxies for their video game records, so they certainly can be relied upon here.

Well, my issue is not with whether the website's record keeping is reliable; it's whether this is the kind of independent sourcing we would need for a general purpose encyclopedia. That website is really for a niche, and I don't think it gets to "significance" or "independence" even if there is a debate to be had regarding reliability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd and the page must stay. For example, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/08/19/bizarro_world?mode=PF is about him in large part. User:sampackgregory —Preceding comment was added at 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another SPA. That article mentions Kuh ONCE; it is not about him. It would go to verifiability, not notability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 mentions in Guiness? Pretty notable. Sampackgregory (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are all of those records reprinted in the GBR? It's not used as a source for his article, and I suspect that not every record at Twin Galaxies is also reprinted by Guinness. Croctotheface (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The documentary isn't about him, it's about Steve Weibe and Billy Mitchell. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an expanded online version of the Guinness Book, there are plenty of people in Guinness who won't ever have WP articles, nor should they. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep just sources that reference him"--gven thatt they are apparently reliable, that would seem enough; I cant really judge to what extent the references are significant/. but certainly that "The article has other issues, such as low constructive editing activity and few pages that link to it" are not reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always worked on the assumption that "significant coverage" meant things like a lot of news articles ABOUT a topic or an entire book ABOUT a topic. If a couple of mentions in a couple sources are enough to establish notability, I can't imagine that anything except patent nonsense or vanity articles could be deleted for lacking notability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep That may be true, but that's the point. I.e. the standard of notability is rather low on purpose. That allows for the creation of pages about things that are important even though it's hard to find that information elsewhere. That is one of the great benefits of wikipedia. Paraphrasing print encyclopedias is not the whole point. The above assumption is not backed by actual policy and it isn't in the best interest of wikipedia. Wikipedia would lose half of its pages and much of its value if such an assumption were implemented into policy.Sampackgregory (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most pages aren't the subject of significant coverage? Or a couple of mentions in a couple of articles is "significant"? I don't think my interpretation of notability guidelines are in the minority at all. In fact, your position is certainly not "backed up by policy", and in fact it appears to run afoul of WP:NOT, particularly that WP is "not an indiscriminate collection of information". Croctotheface (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given lack of significant coverage by reliable sources that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). It has not been established that any of the Twin Galaxies rankings represent significant recognized awards, his role within King of Kong is overstated and appears to be an argument for notability through relation, and the Boston Globe piece makes one passing reference to Kuh that has been grossly exaggerated in earlier remarks. Guys, don't derail this AfD with confused discussion of what 'significant coverage' means; WP:N clearly lays out what is intended as a guide: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." D. Brodale (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep has multiple reliable sources and the large number of records would be enough significance by itself anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He plays video games all day? Get a job ... Not notable beyond his own micro-world. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete

As ive written on the talk page on his article, he DID not set 16 world records in a day. He dosent even show up one alot of the scoreboards on TG, for games he claimed to hold a world record.

He is NOT a retired banker, he probably never had a banking job. He's working in convenience stores and movie theaters and other low jobs like that.

He's nothing special. This is an obvious delete. -rbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.42.110 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2012 (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 Redirect to Knox Grammar School --JForget 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Grammar School Army Cadet Unit[edit]

This school organization is insufficiently notable, I think, and there is already enough coverage for it in the school article itself (Knox Grammar School). Delete (do not merge, as the article's information is too much information when it comes to the school). --Nlu (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as per nom. It is just like a Scout Troop and we do not have articles for them unless there is something very special about them. --Bduke (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable commentary which could be described for similar units at other schools. Murtoa (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a long-standing convention that individual cadet units aren't notable, and this seems to be no exception. Including some material in the article on the parent school would probably be warrented though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable cadet unit. A mention in the relevant school article would seem to be appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable (just another school cadet unit) and already covered sufficiently in Knox Grammar School. Loopla (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. The debate quickly diverted itself to possible rename or merge ideas, which is yet undecided. We are clearly no longer considering deletion, so AfD is not needed to finish the editor collaboration that has started here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Bow Marine Field Station[edit]

The program may be notable, but it doesn't appear to have an article. There's no evidence this particular field station is. Ghits don't assert any notability and it doesn't appear to be on a map, so I don't think there's any inherent notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the article should be moved to the name of the island where the field station is located, Carrie Bow Cay, Belize (sometimes written Carrie Bow Caye), at coordinates 16° 47' 00" N 088° 04' 00" W, since all islands are notable. I found a map at http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Carrie+Bow+Cay,+belize&sll=17.189877,-88.49765&sspn=4.045267,8.657227&ie=UTF8&ei=SJnDR83pJ4aijgGMx8GWCA&sig2=aJDsVGeW-DIjnjJGKMNwgw&cd=3&cid=16802569,-88081856,488568001953571820&li=lmd&z=14&t=m But as a research station, its claim to notability is the scientific research that has been done there, and a Unesco reference states that more than 500 scientific apers have been published as a result of research at Carrie Bow Marine Field Station. --Eastmain (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There or if an article is written about the project. I think it would fit in either place but doesn't have standalone notability. The info you added is good, but I think it still needs to be part of a larger whole. I think the research, if I found the same source as you did, is part of the Ecosystem project, which could make for an article there. I think it could be merged with whichever is likely to be more substantive. I'm not in favor of creating an island article just to plant this there. I know islands are inherently notable but it doesn't mean we have to create an article on every island just because we can. Make sense? Where do we think it would 'fit' better? I'm leaning toward the org since it's 'known' for its research, not its location TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article on the organization would be more appropriate. The island itself looks fairly small, but the research done by the organization would be more notable and worth covering. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. No prejudice against other handling, such as the merger proposed by Dhartung, to address concerns of stand-alone notability or sparsity of sourcing. Further conversation about the appropriate treatment of the article should take place in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Wilde[edit]

Doesn't seem to pass WP:N guidelines. Of the four "references", two are written by the subject and the other two are on IMDB. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted my comments on the articles Talk page, re-posting here now. If the article still qualifies for deletion then delete it. I don't have any more to add to it right now, sorry. I still think it is a mistake because I recently heard him give a lecture and I think he is going on tour, so there will be a lot more references to him and his work at some point. But I guess I will leave it to someone else to re-do the work at that point. His book, btw, is brilliant and ground-breaking. Wonder14 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- There does seem to be sources and his name is mentioned in several publications in google books, which supports the notion that he is a notable figure in homosexual psychology. Rigby27 Talk 14:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about the person. It is a basic vita listing. Seems more appropriate for a personal website. Renee (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Paul Monette. Citations are sparse or incidental. Most of the times he comes up it's as Monette's partner, either in the documentary or in memorializations. His 2007 book does not seem to have been reviewed by major pubs. There are a few papers, but not major ones (he only gets a drive-by mention in The Advocate, for example[48], suggesting some name recognition but not supporting WP:BK). I don't think he's quite at WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's nice and sourced! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice and sourced? All four of the actual references are to articles about Monette. The rest are his bibliography - so none of them pass the "significant coverage" part of WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heckler & Koch HK WSG2000[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heckler & Koch HK WSG2000

362 ghits.

Canceled sniper rifle, didn't pass the first stage of development, doesn't appear to have any notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, meant 362 for "wsg2000 heckler koch". OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Whew! If there were an article on every would of, could of, should have been invention then we'd have a zillion non-notable articles. Renee (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Due to it being cancelled, that would mean it fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; worthy of one line and a redirect to List of Heckler & Koch products (which mentions this "prototype"). bd2412 T 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice On the offchance H&K revisits and manufactures the gun design then I would expect an article on it here; until then though, it really ought to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluessential[edit]

Asserts enough notability to avoid a speedy and isn't quite spammy enough, but I cannot verify the 'reviews' included and refining a general search doesn't turn up anything either. No evidence they pass any aspect of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, fan site. No secondary sources. Renee (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ase Card[edit]

Non-notable rapper. No secondary sources listed; only 1600 ghits, of which few are about the rapper. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation of previously deleted material. скоморохъ 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CSD G4 doesn't apply to articles that have been deleted under CSD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only mention by a source and that is only trivial mention, already speedied as mentioned earlier. Artist hasn't released an album yet or signed to a label. Fails all 12 of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Optigan13 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also conflict of interest as end of article states "...and melodic ballad, “Not Like This”, featuring Blaze Trackz.", which is username of article creator. Optigan13 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSITION: I AM NOT ASE CARD. It is a guy 4rom around my town, so i think i should be free to write an article about him, shouldn't I? There is credible information on this page of Ase Card being in a nationwide MTV2 Dew Circuit Contest in the group B.A.R.S. as well as his popularity among hip hop lovers in the Bay Area, Califoria. Ase Card also does have a record deal, although not major, he is signed under Young Black Brotha Recordings, which constitutes this page to remain on Wikipedia. Mentioned in the article is a future release, but he does have past releases under indie label Non Stop Recordings, his own company which is legitimized as a REAL COMPANY. This page is 100% percent true and I request this possible deletion be removed. Thank you. - Blaze Trackz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, I produced one of Ase Card's Tracks, but does that void me from writing an article about a rapper I know, it shouldn't. I am not related to him in any way, but yeah, I love his music. I'm a fan. So yes, I wish to, and to continue to write an article about him with out any more interruptions or attempts of deletion if possible. -Blaze Trackz—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 03:26, March 3, 2008

After reviewing the criteria, This article doesn't call for a speedy deletion. There have been prior releases for this artist and checking the sources will prove this rapper is signed to a label that has enough clout in the music industry to have has produced songs for snoop dogg and tupac (when he was living), so all in all, this article need not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied it earlier, as the page doesn't assert notability. Underground teenage rapper, no sources, signed to a non-notable minor label. The article says that he is "seeking a major deal" and that his "debut album, “Welcome 2 Me”, is slated for release in the summer of 2008". That about says it all. Note that Blaze Trackz also created the article Acecard, which has since been deleted. faithless (^speak) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't find anything for Acecard in the logs. You sure that's the right page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, typo; I meant Asecard. faithless (^speak) 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources; just fan sites and the second reference links to a search engine. Renee (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary credible source is present @ http://www.distortion2static.com/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=296, This article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable rapper with no tours or notable label. Undeath (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Undead Warrior" want thie page deleted. They're page clearly states they don't like hip hop and only fancy death metal. the Ase Card page is perfectly fine and needs to remain on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 04:13, March 3, 2008
Ase Card is on YBB, which is a notable independent record label in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.109.140 (talk • contribs) 04:28, March 3, 2008

- I have not found any assertation of notability towards YBB. Ase Card still fails WP:MUSIC. Undeath (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEARCH YOUNG BLACK BROTHA RECORDS and KHAYREE SHAHEED, THE OWNER OF THE LABEL, and you will SEE this label is a credible LABEL and THERE IS NO NEED FOR DELETION. ASE CARD has NOT failed WP:MUSIC criteria and this page deserves to remain on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNDER the guidelines, Ase Card can NOT be deleted unless he fails under CRITERION A7, and hasn't. WP:MUSIC states that a mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, which I have claimed Ase Card retains notoriety, with recognition of him, under bars, on MTV2 and MTV2.com. Also, his label is noted as a premiere laabel in the bay area, Calif., which constitutes for a cease in potential deletion as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazetrackz (talk • contribs) 05:05, March 3, 2008

This is not speedy deletion. And please STOP SCREAMING. Thanks. —Kurykh 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website shows that there are 6 bands signed at the moment. None of them are notable. They don't tour, they don't make big interviews etc... The label and the bands are non notable. Undeath (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable artist. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable artist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, nn artist. Reso lute 06:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't Delete fast enough. Grsz11 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. And Blazetrackz, be quiet, please. JuJube (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, also self-admitted WP:COI case (see above) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural issues: I object to the deletion of a comment from this discussion, labelled "vandalism" when it was not, although it was improperly formatted. I object to the moving of a comment from where it was clearly, in my opinion, a reply to the comment immediately above it, to another location on this page (although again it was improperly formatted). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Restored both of these. Apologies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's fine. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the basic Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. — Athaenara ✉ 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not meet WP:MUS. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsigned, undistributed, unnoted except locally. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rohach[edit]

Circular notability issue. This page was created to provide a notability argument for Ivan Rohach's inclusion in either the Babi Yar article or the POV fork List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre (currently under afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. In fact, +"Ivan Rohach" -wikipedia produces but a ~~few dozen~~ 16, mostly repetitive hits. Jd2718 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's not a good enough reason for deletion of this article. Ostap 03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable.Galassi (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is a respected writer and newspaper editor who was murdered by the Nazi's at Babi Yar. Articles about him exist in the Ukrainian language Encyclopedias, including the Ukrainian, Russian and Hungarian Wikipedias. Jd2718 is being a nuisance and pushing his personal POV and views here, and in other articles dealing with Ukrainians and Ukrainian issues. Bandurist (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bandurist, in future please do not canvass, as you did for this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject may not be a household name but its articles such as these that make wikipedia richer. Eduvalko (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per the terms of WP:N.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems notable but in need of more secondary sources. Renee (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems notable to me.Faustian (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough, agree on some more sources. There's a lot of history to catch up on as we find ourselves in the post-Soviet era. And certainly more notable than my (rare but today) look through "new articles". There one truly has to ask "WHY?". —PētersV (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is about knowledge, and there will always be someone willing to find out about this person and his life. Tymek (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete stubs for lack of sources. Also, a bit more good faith in the article creator's intentions from the nominator would probably be in order as well. Bellwether ^B _C 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like the start of a good article! Bobanni (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Search engine's hits is only one way to measure notability. In this case, reputable secondary sources exist and are cited in the article.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it clearly needs better sourcing and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclusion of him in a general Ukrainian encyclopedia (Ukrainozantstva) by itself shows his notability Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Eduvalko and Faustian - he is notable in this field. He may not be internationally renown, but in this area, he is. Horlo (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Reviewing, his notability comes from being editor of the Novoyi Svobody newspaper, being the secretary to a man who was prime minister of a region for two days, writing political pamphlets, and then from being in Babi Yar. Unfortunately, none of the sources are in English (nor do they actually point to the specific information being cite), so there's WP:V concerns as well. If there was more about the nature of the newspaper or his political impact, I'd strengthen my support, but the verifiability issues concern me more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See the Google Books results per notability. There may be issues with particular facts, but he's mentioned in multiple references works. --Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling his name in Ukrainian (Іван Рогач) you get 3,200 hits Іван Рогач - here I'm certain this information will be added to the article. Bandurist (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I respect the decision to test the articles notability in AfD, I wish that there were less trigger-happy pro-deletion nominators in general. Why couldn't a discussion have been started on the talk page first? Bardcom (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. Total lack of secondary sources means failure of WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness Retail and Business Park[edit]

Non-notable shopping complex. Nothing to distinguish it from thousands of similar shopping centers. No sources since May 2007; prod removed without explanation. Jfire (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. because it fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted for the second time in two days, this time by Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). cab (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteopathic family physicians[edit]

This has been speedily deleted once under A1, not sure the new version has any more context. ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel this article is more suited for WebMD than WP. ArcAngel (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable topic and appears to be a stub. This could be a really good encyclopedic entry if someone took the time to expand it. It definitely is something that should be in Wikipedia. Renee (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have tagged this as a copyvio, since it seems to consist entirely of material copied directly from several website, possibly all tracing back to the same parent site. At this point the term appears the be the proprietary meologism of a medical society. Mangoe (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lip[edit]

Fails notability. The only claim to notability (in fact the only thing of substance the article says) is that she won the Australian Girls Chess Championship twice, but no other winners of this tournament have WP pages. Footnote to WP:BIO says, "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc". Lip clearly falls into this category, i.e. she has won a comparatively minor chess tournament. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above fails to point out that selective quote is NOT a requirement of WP:BIO. It's from the additional criteria section and therefore "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." When you instead read the WP:BIO Basic criteria the article does I believe meet the requirements. ChessCreator (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? If you mean the WFM title, see my answer below. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Just the Basic criteria section at the top. As there is multi secondary source material. ChessCreator (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australian Chess Championship#Australian Girl's Champions. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable, if she won the national girls championship. I say keep, but it does need quite a bit of work. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - As a chess enthusiast, I'd love it if national champions got notable coverage in the press in Australia, but they don't. Let alone national junior champions. So in a minor chess country like Australia, I believe anything but the national senior championship fails to qualify as one of "the most prestigious events" required by WP:BIO. And without any press coverage, what is there to write? At least for a senior champion, there's usually a significant career to write about. (See e.g. Darryl Johansen, a multiple Australian senior chess champion). But a junior championship is just a once-off event, and many juniors (in any sport) stop playing, or fail to excel at the senior level. So there's nothing to write except "X won the national junior championship of Y in year Z" - as in the case here. We've already got Australian Chess Championship#Australian Girl's Champions, so why does Catherine Lip need her own article? I still say Delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments by Peter Ballard--Matilda ^talk 03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I note with concern a significant number of red links in the article ( Australian Chess Championship ). I suggest that there not be red links - happy for wikilinks for articles that exist but I suggest this AfD covers removing redlinks as well - notability for others would be on a case by case basis - for example, Robert Bartnik whose stub article fails to mention he was a junior chess champion - might of course not be the same person; or Zhao Zong-Yuan who has gone on to greater Ches triumphs.--Matilda ^talk 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Ballard's comment above is right on. Renee (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every year there is a winner for girls and boys, and that puts us at hundreds, and then we have subclassifications. Winning is very nice. Becoming a grand master is about where the line is for encyclopedic level. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She does hold the Woman FIDE Master title; however her Elo rating of 2052 is not exceptional. She isn't in the top 100 players in Australia and she certainly isn't anywhere near the top 100 female players in the world.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wasn't aware that she held the WFM title. That adds some notability, but we still need more for a WP entry, in my opinion - though now at least I'm open to being convinced otherwise. It's still the case of that the article really has nothing but her birth year, years she won the Junior championship, and her title. Perhaps there is a case for creating a page called something like Titled Australian Chess Players, where they can be listed with links to their FIDE rating cards. The list wouldn't be exceptionally long (100 or so, only 3 (hopefully soon 4) of which are Grandmasters). Peter Ballard (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears she earned that title by her 4th place in a Zonal tournament. That's the first part of the World Championship cycle but of course it's a long way from the championship itself. From her FIDE card it looks like she hasn't played any rated games since 2003, which would imply she's given up chess. Not much opporuntity for expansion if that's the case.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning the Girl's Championship is a good achievement, but it is not a strong indicator of notability since the tournament is no stronger than the weekend opens which are played throughout the world. Winning the general national chess championship makes you "the strongest player in the country" and is a reasonable claim to notability, but "the strongest female under a certain age in the country" has too many restrictions on participation (gender and age and nationality) to include the strongest and notable players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chess champion; verifiable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing like enough verifiable info to convince me she is notable enough. Paste (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peter Ballard, as not notable enough. I would also agree with the redirect suggested by Brewcrewer. SyG (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peter Ballard. Charles Weldon has been proposed for deletion as non-notable, and I'm inclined to agree with that. Lip is rated almost 300 Elo rating points below Weldon. Non-notable. Krakatoa (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle makes a good point above. Lip, two-time winner of the Australian Girls Championship, is a low expert. Many weekend tournaments have strong enough fields that one generally has to be a master (2200-2399, a rung above expert (2000-2099)), or even a senior master (2400 and above), to win. I'm looking here at an old issue of the Illinois Chess Bulletin that says on the cover "Master XXX YYY 1981 [Greater Chicago Open] Champion." The master in question (rated slightly over 2200) was rated almost 200 points above Lip, as was his unmentioned co-champion, also a low master. There were five other masters, and 27 experts, in the 1981 Greater Chicago Open. I would not take seriously a claim that master XXX YYY would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia for being "two-time winner of the Greater Chicago Open." A fortiori, being a two-time winner of the much weaker Australian Girls Championship is non-notable. Krakatoa (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm a little wary of that argument, because gender (and to a lesser degree nationality) affect notability. An Australian woman rated 2200-2300 could probably have won every Australian women's championship until recently (which would be a notable achivement), and a number of women's world champions were not GM strength. So let's focus on Catherine Lip's claims to notability (which I still think she fails) rather than comparing her to males or other countries. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. In my opinion, winners of school competitions are not worthy of inclusion unless they continue to go on to bigger and more notable competitions, and this article states that "She has not played any FIDE rated games since October 2003" (five years is a pretty long time). Loopla (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not played any FIDE rated games in five years, doesn't mean she isn't playing. ChessCreator (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable as she is a Woman FIDE Master, Australian Girl's Champion 1999 and Australian Girl's Champion 2000. The Woman FIDE Master is verifiable from a reliable source, FIDE, the Girl's champion are also verified. Someone has taken the time to create this article this year and despite much of it's contents being removed I see no reason to delete it.

As a side, I question why non-Athletic competitors are treated differently to athletic competitors in WP:BIO ChessCreator (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Woman FIDE Master" is a joke title, roughly translating to "expert," apparently. Being a male FIDE Master (roughly corresponding to 2300+ Elo rating) is non-notable; there's no reason that being a Woman FIDE Master with an Elo a little over 2000, like Ms. Lip, is notable. Krakatoa (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find that only a "Woman FIDE Master" argument quite weak. You can't compare males to females. Females occur a lot less in chess, and correspondingly the top female players are awarded titles, even when titles are easier to get in terms of ELO playing strange, it's much harder to get because of the significantly lower numerical numbers.

For example, in the USA there are 60 Male Grandmasters, the Top60 titles males are all GM's. Now, let's compare that to the Top US female titles. 1 GM(Zsuzsa Polgar), 10 WGM's, 22 WIM's and 18 WFM. 1+10+22+18=51. Still nine females short and we have run out of titles of female players. So 60 male GMs but not 60 Women's titles. Conclusion: A Woman FIDE Master title is quite significant indeed. ChessCreator (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, are you suggesting that WFM is more significant than GM? Your argument falls down because women's sports do not get the same coverage as men's sports: just because (taking a guess) 1000 active US pro baseball players have articles, it doesn't follow that the top 1000 active female softball players get articles. I'm happy to concede that WFM is nearly as significant as FM, but ranking it alongside GM makes no sense. Currently being a FM (on its own) is not notable enough to get a WP article - in fact I believe not all GMs have articles, though maybe they should. Certainly not all IMs (let alone FMs) have articles, and this is probably right, because they haven't achieved enough to get notability. So a WFM title is nowhere near enough. Especially since, as I've been saying all along, there's almost nothing else to say about her. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not more significant then GM. Just that Women's titles are hard to come by and any idea that you can compare women to men based on ELO is in my view misguided.

""almost nothing else to say about her" - Peter Ballard. That I don't understand. Did you look? More info on her after searching G. There are 67 of her games at masterchessgames.com and 7 at chessgames.com, so a game could be shown perhaps. She is among Top20 females in Australia according to FIDE. She most likely holds various records as youngest Australian WFM etc as she was only 15 at the time(but that requires checking). She played in the World Youth Under-16 Chess Olympiad, 2002, played for Australia. She took part in the World Juniors Chess Championships, Greece 2001, a strong female tournament won by now WGM Koneru Humpy. Info is out there, you just have to look for it.

This article was only created this year, it's not surprising that it doesn't contain much information. Submitting it for deletion (this is the second time already!) isn't going to encourage editors to add to this or other articles just to have there efforts deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also info in this about women vs men in sports etc that is not in the current version of the wiki article, yet it was in the past. ChessCreator (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 24 players at Category:Australian chess players. Four of these (Benson, Caoili, Farleigh, Sarfati) are notable for non-chess reasons, and each of the other 19 is more or less a legend of Australian chess. Lip's achievements are miles below those other 19. You could probably add another 100 Australian chess players - some male, some female - who are far more notable than Lip.

The things you mention - top 20 women in Australia, playing in the Olympiad, playing in the world junior, having games at chessgames.com - still don't cut it with the regulations at WP:BIO, in my opinion (and are way below the achievements of the other 19). Especially since the disclaimer at WP:BIO specifically mentions chess as a non-athletic sport in which only the top level deserves mention. (And I am not denigrating women's chess here, I say this if I consider her achievements in the field of women's chess). If you want WP to have every titled player, or every Chess Olympiad participant etc., then fine, so be it. But to do that, the WP:BIO guidelines will need to change. So I think the place to start is lobby for less stringent guidelines for chess at WP:BIO. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you seem to be misinterpreting everything that I have written. Please read my above edit again. You said "almost nothing else to say about her", I provided multi additional information you seemed unaware of to show there is more to say about her. I didn't imply just because Ms Lip appears in a chess Olympiad, that every Chess Olympiadian should have an article. That's not what I said.

The WP:BIO guidelines are good enough. All that is require is to read it carefully. I believe you have not read the entire article, it's a broader document then the narrow 'Note 8' section you quote when opening this AfD.

If you had read the WP:BIO guidelines in full you would have realised the following before raising an AfD.

WP:BIO gives:

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[9] try to improve it by: Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. This didn't happen link
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. This didn't happen link
Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors. This didn't happen link

I believe, the failings above are enough to withdraw the AfD irrespective of the debate about the articles notability. It makes little sense to have raised this AfD, I ask you to withdraw it and save editors time. ChessCreator (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't follow the full process. But since the article's creator was notified a week ago, I see no reason to withdraw the nomination for procedural reasons. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With respect to ChessCreator's argument, this seems akin to an article about winners of the Little League World Series. faithless (^speak) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chessgames.com's Game of the Day[edit]

Chessgames.com's Game of the Day is a game that Catherine Lip won at the 2001 Women's Zonal. The game is here. SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particularly great game. The main reason it was GOTD, it appears, is so that ChessGames could make a lame pun "Lip Stick" (the title it gave to the game) - an allusion to Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" statement, which John McCain's camp had used to gin up a faux controversy, suggesting that Obama had likened Sarah Palin to a pig. Krakatoa (talk) 16:14, 3 October 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 nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Brow, Lancashire[edit]

Disputed prod. Article is about a small village in West Lancashire, England, UK. The village is the "second smallest village in the parish of Tarleton". Does not meet notability requirements - it's just too small to be notable. Xenon⁵⁴ 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geography based subjects are inherently notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. AfD precedents say that cities and villages, regardless of size are automatically notable. However a proposed notability guideline for places says that a place must have noticeable economic impact on its region, so this precedent could be null and void in the future. Xenon⁵⁴ 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax lot[edit]

This is a WP:DICDEF and does not belong on Wikipedia. (I'd CSD this article, but it didn't fit the criteria. Still, I think it would be WP:SNOW. <3 bunny 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:DICDEF. ArcAngel (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of above, and also it has been transwikified to wiktionary. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 01:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per comments above. Renee (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Clark (poet)[edit]

Presenting this article for review. This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. He only has a couple of works, and from what I've seen, works with non-notable entities in the field. ArcAngel (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A visible young poet who should be in Wikipedia. Not quite sure what the nominator can mean by "non-notable entities." The James Laughlin award? Farrar Straus? Sun and Moon Press? I added a few small things.--Wageless (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contains a decent source or two. Needs to be written more objectively and better sourced. Renee (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reviews available. One I found calls him "one of our most significant younger poets". Jfire (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with Wageless here -- there was plenty of evidence of notability in theicle as nominated, including a major award and publication by a major press. Needs some cleanup/wikification and better references, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has been the recipient of notable awards. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus for deletion. Merge may be a possibility to be evaluated by active editors on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)[edit]

Although the article is fairly well written, the subject isn't notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry in the first place. This article pertains to an unlicensed Chinese ROM hack, and not a legitimate product. The article is poorly sourced and lacks much coverage, beyond small references going back to ROM hacking communities. Please see WP:N Wiki22445 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most ROM hacks lack the coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. This one is no different. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NeoChaosX. <3 bunny 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent coverage, so it fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTE: Game isn't a rom hack, but a programmed from scratch game, which gathered a lot of coverage in very short time. Article covers that clearly. Cartridge also pushes boundaries originally thought to exist on Nintendo cartridges, as the referenced articles state.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, all of the coverage of this rom is in blogs. None of them are reliable sources, so right now this subject fails the verifiability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trying to remedy that a little now actually. At the very least I pointed Kotaku.com at it in hopes they take interest in the cart. Every other bit of information I've found anywhere though, even non-blogs, points either to joystiq or cinnamonpirate.com as places to go for further information, making additional references a little difficult to gather for the time being, though that might offer some verification to cinnamon's article if I can cite that somehow possibly?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a bit of a footnote to this to support that a little, one of the sites pointing to that article on cinnamonpirate.com about the game is insertcredit.com, which has been used several times on wikipedia as a valid reference of it's own. Dunno if that helps out in terms of validity, but there you go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to boot since I'm on a roll, Joystiq.com, one of the cited sources, has an article here as you can see, which should bolster verification somewhat more, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if it is a pirate (cart, not rom), the end result is significant in terms of what can be accomplished with an NES cartridge. Also, if Wikipedia is so concerned with not allowing pirates to be discussed, why is there an article for Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon? 72.234.254.153 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The legality of a topic isn't a reason for deletion: see WP:N and WP:V, which say nothing about legality. The only argument for deletion that the nominator and others have mentioned is "lack of reliable sources". However, this is not true; the article cites Joystiq, which is a gaming news website and not a personal blog (even though it is presented like a blog). See Wikipedia:SELFPUB#_note-4:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

The same thing applies to Kotaku and Insert Credit, so that's 3 reliable sources. Besides, the topic came to light only recently, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I believe we should take the time to improve the article and see how it goes. FightingStreet (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ROM hacks, fan remakes, and pirate versions all ahare one important characteristic: they're not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. This would be, at best a sentence in the Final Fantasy VII article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:N. Notability is determined by reliable sources, not the intrinsic nature of a topic. The topic discussed here definitely possesses reliable sources. FightingStreet (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of reliable sources, then add them to the article. All I'm seeing is blogs and a Geocities page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained above, with a direct quotation from WP:V, how several of these sites are not unreliable. FightingStreet (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the passage you cite. "Some newspapers host interactive columns...(etc.)" refers to "blogs" hosted by sites like the New York Times and written by their columnists. The key word here is newspaper. It certainly doesn't refer to stuff like "Insert Credit" and Geocities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of times those sites have been used as reference and have been proven reliable (Kotaku and insertcredit both have covered major articles from the horses mouth, and Kotaku has had a press relationship with Sony and other game companies for quite some time which they've mentioned). If you're expecting magazine citations it's too early for that: information about the game showed up less than two weeks ago, and a simple search online shows just how much it's spread to cover notability and verifiability. As it stands all a magazine could end up adding would be the same as the other references already state.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's just another NN pirate game, nothing special about it. TJ Spyke 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been proven notable if you read any of this or the blasted article. How is just running in with a one liner in the middle of this a valid reason?!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's bee proven to exist (WP:V), not that its notable (WP:N). TJ Spyke 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq and Kotaku both covered the game, which for a pirate cart isn't anything to exactly sneeze at, especially given the first news of it is less than two weeks old. Additionally the hardware behind it, as covered by cinnamonpirate.com, is unique, which gives some notability as to what the old famicom hardware can do (especially given you're not likely to see many people even bohter pushing the limits like that). How isn't it notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original game was, and is, incredibly popular and this pirated version has been covered by reputable sources.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, notability is not inherited. However, the importance and popularity of the original game cannot be over-looked. Also, the fact that the game has been covered by several sources shows the game's notability.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh, it appears that there are a LOT of similar "de-ports" to the NES in the Chinese pirate market. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is irrelevant. FightingStreet (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just commenting on something interesting. Please WP:AGF. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did; I simply stressed the fact that the existence and notability or non-notability of these other games are irrelevant to this discussion. FightingStreet (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been covered by multiple popular gaming blogs, and is notable because it seems to have pushed the limits of the Famicon. Not to mention, the coverage it has gotten in such a short amount of time is respectable, seeing as the original post (at Cinnamon Pirate) was only a week or so ago. Robert the Small (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legality is not a requirement for inclusion, nor a blanket term that can be used to make things not notable. This topic has had coverage in reliable third party sources, and is notable within the context of commercial piracy in general. User:Krator (t c) 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per KFM. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never ever have I heard of this remake. If it's notable enough, it can be merged into Final Fantasy VII. The Prince (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. FightingStreet (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but the sources do. One of the refs (6 in all) is from GeoCities, which is not a reliable source. The Prince (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The page in question had both box and and screenshots of the game so it was in the external links anyway. The citation it was used in was regarding the game's difficulty (other statements had come up in the other sources as well, but there was the issue of reusing a source to death). Now given the content of the site citing an issue with it being on geocities is a bit absurd given it would be a non-issue on a paid domain with exactly the same information. As far as you not hearing about it, why is that a relevant factor? I haven't heard of half the stuff here on wikipedia but that doesn't leave me questioning the notability of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said that because I'm quite familiar with FFVII and its sequels and remakes. If it really was notable, I probably would have heard of it. The Prince (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the account that this has been mentioned on several major game blogs. Yes, definitely not as nice as having it mentioned in the magazines or other major media, but nice enough for now. This thing was only recently brought to public attention, so if kept, it probably needs to be revisited later. Illegality is practically not an issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should make a very interesting paragraph in the main Final Fantasy 7 article, not its own article, not yet enough notability established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Judge. Well-put. Eusebeus (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, you (Judge) are writing "Delete" yet your explanation indicates that it should be merged, not deleted. Please reconsider you vote. Deletion and merge/redirect is not the same thing. FightingStreet (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I still say "delete" because all but a paragraph of the article would be deleted, so it's not really merge so much as delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject clearly fails verifiability. 97.84.166.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to participate in the discussion, at least do it properly. It has been established without a doubt that the subject pass verifiability. Even the persons who voted Oppose did not argue or argue much against that. The only supposed point of contention is notability, not verifiability. FightingStreet (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith WP:AGF. An AfD nomination should not be interpreted as a personal attack. Remember: we're here to contribute to a growing community, not regard it as our personal space. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete [Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information]. There are certain criteria an article must meet, namely verifiability and notability. Notable sources do not include personal blogs, Geocities, and other such material sourced by this article. This has already been said. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is joystiq, kotaku and insertcredit all are not personal blogs and are recognized as valid sources for other game related articles where the information comes up. If you'd read the above you'd have noticed that we already covered that to death.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't strong enough to warrant an entire article. I think the subject might be a worthwhile mention (a short, referenced statement) in the Final Fantasy VII article, but having an article to itself is absurb. The lack of notable information amounts for the fact that there's really nothing to say about the subject that wouldn't require further verifiability, beyond the simple fact that it exists. The meat of the article is random bits of original thought and research into an otherwise pointless subject. How on Earth you can continue to muster that this is by any means encyclopedic is beyond me. o_0 68.209.235.149 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, and this sounds quite rude but I just woke up, but you're talking out of your butt and not reading the entire subject presented before you. The sources in question are being shown to be verified sources, not random online blogs. The geocities site in question was addressed earlier this page (and brought into context by insertcredit.com I might add, so it isn't just rrandomly there). You through around "original thoughts and research" even though the statements therin are clearly cited and backed up by other sources used. Then you have the "absurb"ity to claim this is not encyclopedic at all and not being presented and argued for such despite everything being argued for those purposes, and for the finisher you toss an accusation that the keep votes must be rigged despite having no proof and just moments ago shouting "have good faith"? Yeah I'm just not going to say further other than whatever response you use should be very thought out...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom seems notable to me. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To try and achieve some broader thoughts on the subject, Nintendo and Square Enix have both been sent inquiries on it. Any information or thoughts they offer will end up referenced in the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The fact that this is not a "legitimate product", as noted in the nomination, is utterly irrelevant and in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that many of these "keep" votes assume AfD discussions are a popularity vote. If you've been called here by another user as a personal favor, please keep in mind that this is an attempt to establish a consensus and discuss problems with the article, not cast a vote. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that good faith you were talking about a moment ago? Ah, subjectiveness. Of *course* someone's running around mustering the troops. How else would wikipedians that have no knowledge of each other or past involvement with one another...wait that doesn't make a lick of sense >:P. Now given you have no proof of that subject, I don't believe dashing in throwing that argument around sjpws a lick of good faith do you?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an open admission that you're bringing in meat puppets to sway the voting decision? 68.209.235.149 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such action of the sort is occuring. The people that are voting here too additionally if you haven't noticed save for a few of the Delete voters have long contributions to wikipedia. If anything given this unfounded accusation and the previous tirade that was merely your own opinion and not fact really I don't see further reason to bother with you or your sillyness. If you wish to make an accusation that doesn't revolve around "this isn't going my way something must be wrong", make it and back it up. Otherwise don't disrupt this debate further with nonsense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the article was brought to my attention by someone who was bemoaning its existence. It was after having seen the article I came here to cast a vote to keep. This is a perfectly valid subject. It isn't just some random ROM hack that some guy decided to share on the internet, and the delete proponents need to stop misrepresenting the subject that way. FYI, your attempt to invoke speedy deletion just exposes that you are, for some reason, personally desperate to get this article deleted. Why not tell us your real motivation? You clearly aren't interested in following WP policies. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you both one more time to assume good faith. AfD discussions are NOT for personal arguments. Please discuss the article, its problems or possible resolutions. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I first started my account on Wikipedia, I was called a single-purpose account. Yet I’m still here months later, editing, creating pages, and commenting on articles. My own experience has shown me that when people call others “SPAs,” they no longer can argue their point and must use insults. I’m not saying that this happened this time, but if you want a discussion, have one without labeling others and debate their points, not the people.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Final Fantasy VII. The sources are troubling. For example, instead of ref #11 being a personal communication with customer service representative, at the very least, some documentation (e.g. written correspondence or email exchange) should be filed with the OTRS and then the reference to the OTRS archive should be added to the article. Racepacket (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that one, it ended up put there just some citation existed given it was the only response I had at that time (and was pretty much there to avoid a ^{[citation needed]} tag being added tile I could gather better information). It's being removed, and Square Enix's response is being swapped in atm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I think a one or two sentence mention in the Final Fantasy VII article would be fine, but a full merging of the two would be a bit much, considering the bulk of the article is just filler. I would also only carry over a couple of the references just to establish the existence of the title. It would pass notability as a mention or section to the article of Final Fantasy VII, since it is related by default. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, No merge. It already has coverage in a couple of reliable sources, and this is only going to increase over time. The fact that it is a production of questionable legality ultimately has no bearing on its validity as an article -- it would be pretty amusing if the article was deleted on legal grounds, as every article on crime should then be deleted also. Whether it is illegal doesn't change its notability. A merge is also unreasonable, as there is already a wealth of information about the remake specifically, that it would basically pollute the FF7 article to include all the details there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one argued legality, just notability and verifiability. The mention of the game's legality was probably in regards to its notability -- the subject of "Chinese originals" (ROM hacks distributed by Chinese "software companies") is not a notable subject in itself. As a general rule of thumb, if a subject is not encyclopedic in nature -- i.e., you wouldn't normally see it featured in a written encyclopedia -- then there's a good chance that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you say "hack" when it isn't a "hack" but made from scratch. Also given you mentioned "software companies", I would direct you to the site link to the company's webpage at the bottom and choose to argue with them that they are not an actually corporation. And verifyablility and legality have both been discussed here at one time or another on this page. The bottom line in all of this is the game is notable: it does things in its internal structure that even licensed games have not accomplished and is structurally different than any previous ones. How isn't that notable by itself? Then we have the fact that this is a port of FF7, that's for all intents and purposes intact, on a Nintendo system, when the original game signalled the departure of Squaresoft from Nintendo's hardware for Sony. That isn't important either of course. The game getting coverage from blogs that wikipedia itself has recognized and allowed as valid references, and several of which have direct commnications with game companies and company officials. As far as CinnamonPirate.com's own referencing there I point to the fact that GoNintendo.com, a site you'll find used in a ton of references here on wikipedia, copied their article ver batem for their own article, not to mention Kotaku and others when referencing the game linked back to the article, offering a great deal of credibility. And that isn't helping make it notable? How about the fact that it's still very new and if any magazine is going to cover it at the very least, it'll be a little while due to the fact that it's still making rounds and people are still questioning if the game is even real or not. And that isn't an important factor? You tell me, how articles on Pirates vs. Ninjas or forgettable porn stars are things that belong in wikipedia much more than an article that I'm trying to push heavily to get good. Now you want to condemn it then condemn it mr. IP guy, but at least have the decency to take it to my talk page and suggest what could be done to help make it better, because that'd be a lot more helpful all around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject. The few references of independent coverage are trivial at best, and do not establish fair notability within the notability guidelines. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right -- you cannot justify the existence of one poorly sourced article by pointing out that another one hasn't been taken care of yet. Third, and for the last time, please assume good faith. This means not calling other editors out, not interpreting AfD nomatinations as personal attacks, etc. We are all here to contribute to Wikipedia. Part of contributing sometimes means taking away. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Judgesurreal. — Bl ue 。 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge sources raise issues with notability/verifiability as mentioned though the subject might make a good addition to the FF7 article. 67.142.130.32 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep it for whatever reason. I think every page has a right to live for their own, and to give information about things like this to keep ppl informed of rare games. --98.26.120.149 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty WP:POINT-y keep reason.
Merge, since one must not give undue coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogs don't qualify as reliable third party sources. Hell, who thinks a Geocities link is a good source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I honestly don't know much about games, and for those like me, indepth info on them here on wiki is a lot more helpful than just a one liner, stating something like game was made at so and so time, for so and so system the end. So I say keep it.--12.104.173.130 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think geocites or blogs resources are really bad since there are few to none estabilished sites talking about bootlegs or such around the web, so since those sites are commonly used to those intentions, they are very valid sources. On top of that, it's not everyday you see a game as long as final fantasy VII inside a nes cart, it's surely a must keep.--Zsabreuser (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those arguing about the validity of the blogs, I direct you to here: Joystiq, Kotaku, Boing Boing, Baidu. If you do a search for GoNintendo.com, you'll find it used extensively in pages here, and it copied word for word the CinnamonPirate.com article. InsertCredit has also seen heavy usage as a reference here in wikipedia, though not nearly as much. The Takooni hires it's posters as shown by the help wanted page, and additionally did an interview with Billy_Mitchell_(gamer), which really doesn't come across as something a non-name site would do. What I'm getting at is all of these have examples of notability, especially the first 4 which have had pages for some time here on wikipedia and if they were not notably, would have seen removal well before now. Just trying to explain a little.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they're notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia does not mean that they're reliable sources of notability. Being on Wikipedia does not make you a reliable third party source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then does them having an established relationship with commercial companies make them reliable third party sources?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Being on Wikipedia does not matter. It proves to us that they're well-known enough, but not that they're reliable third party sources. And the fact that they got some companies to advertise on their site means nothing. My friend's site once had several ads for various games, including Mercury Meltdown. However, it's certainly not a reliable third party source, and it's certainly not a blog-type site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what you mean ALttP, but that's not what I meant. Awhile back for example, Kotaku was blackballed by Sony. If you check the page there you'll see the two clearly have an established relationship of an online journalist, not just a fan blog. And I could go deeper there, but take a look at Joystiq.com, which had interviews with several people, including Ryan Payton, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. And Joystiq was one of the first to cover the FF7 Famicom game after CinnamonPirate. I'm not talking about useless no name blogs. I'm refering specifically to sites that have established raport and are handled as online journalists. InsertCredit even did an interview with the people of Hudson Soft, and were present at this year's GDC event. I could go further, but with this much here does this establish them as valid, reliable, notable references?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Blogs in and of themselves are less reliable than a site such as, for instance, IGN or GameSpot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not really a fair move though. The question was are these reliable sources, given the facts behind them. IGN and GameSpot are both sites that cover mainstream well known games. You're not going to see articles about games like this on there. G4's Attack of the Show? Maybe. EGM doing a small article on it? Sure. But neither of them would end up saying anything that hasn't already been said by the other sources anyway: at most you'd get more reception points to site. I understand your point, but I'm working with what I have, and trying to argue that, what I have, counts as valid source material by their own merits and weight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A blog can post any number of things, there's no criteria, really (as seen with Kotaku's posts about an ocarina and Final Fantasy VII animated pornography), while EGM does have criterias established. If FFVII Famicom gets an article, it'll be because a reliable source established notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a bit unreasonable given main stream news about this thing only showed up the last week of february and every site followed since. Magazines won't cover it at least until next month if they do. Hell EGM didn't cover some games of this sort until long after people had heard of them. But the deletion point isn't being brought up in a month or two, it's being tossed out *now*. And while Kotaku I'll concede has absurdity on occaison and certainly not the best crutch, where are the arguments that joystiq and insertcredit are invalid? They don't have any such nonsense. (Additional, Boing Boing has their own share of officiaal interviews, sans absurdity. If corporate faces feel these are important enough to give an interview to, why are they not notable enough for a site like Wikipedia?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that all the article HAS is blogs. It shouldn't be hard for IGN or GS to mention it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well there is Gameworld Network that did an article on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is coverage of the blog's report. It doesn't really do anything but link to what the blog linked to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And you really expect more? Anything on the game from this point on is just going to repeat what's already been said in the blogs. The point is that's not a blog, and is a notable site. I'm making lemonade with lemons here, you can't expect me to make gold out of the same material. This is the best we can get, and IGN if they did anything would do exactly the same: it doesn't pay their writers the same to cover a game like this compared to the original.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's say we do count this page. So that's a total of, what, one reliable source? And IGN doesn't typically "copy" from blogs. Blogs constantly cover fan works, and I'm hardly convinced that GWN is that notable in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One is better than none. And GWN is a part of UGO Networks, which lends it a lot more credibility. And that helps a lot for the time being, and offset things a little. I'm not saying it's the be all to end all, I'm just saying this should buy some time, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose that's true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge per issues with notability. FFVII article already has a short mention of the subject. 67.142.130.40 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That page has a single sentence on the subject, leaving out everything else that can and has been cited. How is mass reduction of cited information a better move for anyone?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete OR merge some info or resources with ff7 article, or give it its own section in that article. No point in having another ff7 article especialy about a pirated game. BUT I dont just say this because of what the other editors pointe dout. ff7 kind of has too many child articles as it is. I dont understand why we need yet another one just about a pirate game no one has heard about (prolly doesnt count as a child article technically but still). Foxit22 (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)— Foxit22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Judgesurreal777 and Blue. The article hasn't come along much from the time it was created, with a few (non-notable) sources being brought in here and there. This doesn't convince me that the editors are suddenly going to bring in notable sources any time soon after this nomination. As for verifiability, the only thing we can verify is that a copy (a rom) of the game is in circulation, but I can't verify anything about this supposed Chinese developer or the fact that they might have produced this as a physical game cartridge. Right now, I just know that it's a circulated rom, which is something I have serious doubts about the notability of. 64.59.99.130 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the discussion with A Link to the Past here over the sources used and their reliability for proving FF7 Famicom's notability, I decided to take things a bit further and ask for an administrator's insight on the matter. He pointed out that a "blog" can be a reliable source for wikipedia citations if the page is known for accuracy and fast checking, especially if it employs professional editorial staff to review stories.(i.e. the fact that The Takooni, Joystiq and others cited there are run in business style and thus have editors check over the stories that they choose to publish for content and reliability. He pointed out that in a nutshell, something that is called a "blog" may in fact be an "e-zine" which is logically equivalent to a trade journal and just as reliable. Additionally CinnamonPirate's owner Derrick Sobodash is considered reputable in the field he's commenting on regarding rom program structure and cartridge design, which makes him professional enough in the field to allow the subparagraph regarding online resource notability from field professionals to in turn apply to his website. Thus that gives several cases of notable online resources. Phew...I'm tired.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into existing FF 7 article. It's an odditiy that bears mentioning, but not notable enough to have it's own page. -- Elaich ^talk 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing FF7 article is already 91 KB long. FightingStreet (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The existing FF7 article needs a copyedit anyway. — Bl ue 。 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't copyright infringement supposed to be a concern as well? — Bl ue 。 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article isn't promoting it, just stating facts about it and keeping them cited. Besides, WP:Censor, no? And if we did opt to remove anything infringing on copyrights, that'd tear away a huge chunk of things.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, the lack of information on the developer and reaction from the copyright holders of the original game makes the article a bit lacking. My Delete-Merge stance still stands. — Bl ue 。 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I personally contact both Square Enix and Nintendo, and had their responses posted up until User:Axem Titanium removed them citing WP:OR: square's reply is here. They showed disdain as you can see for the game itself. Nintendo of America when contacted refused to comment, tossing me over to Nintend of Japan (who has yet to reply), and denied me a transcript of the conversation I had with them, stating their comment was only "no comment."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Square basically sent out a standard form letter, it's unlikely that anyone at Square really even read the letter or looke dinto it.

Keep - The two arguments for deletion are regarding verifiability and notability. Firstly, the information in the article can and has been verified and cited. The sources, although unusual, are strong enough to verify that the subject did indeed exist in the way the article describes. There is the potential that more sources are out there, but in chinese print media dating back to the time of release. It is unlikely that these further sources would do anything more than reaffirm what information is already available. Secondly, the information is very much notable. It is a product, made and developed from scratch (including the hardware cartridge) by an unlisenced third party company. This is a rare occurance. The copyright violation only lends to the notability, rather than detracting from it. Additionally, the fact that it has been picked up by modern gaming media shows that an unlisenced product developed for a retired console is notable for the unusual factors surrouding it's creation. Gazimoff (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if articles about David Willis, Its Walky! and Shortpacked!(among other things that are not notable) can get pages here, then something that is INTERESTING TO READ should get a page here. Either that, or delete this along with the David Willis webcomic stuff if youre that concerned about "notable"(though I suspect Willis has friends on the WP staff as he's listed as a "famous resident" of La Porte, IN when he is not famous). Point is, "notable" has nothing to do with how WP is run. It's all politics. There are movement sto remove "trivia" and anything else inetresting, because people have it in their heads that this is a legit encyclopedia. Wp is NOT an encyclopedia! It covers many topics that encyclopedias do not, and can be edited by anyone, something else an encyclopedia does not allow. If WP really wants to be an encyclopedia then it should close down user edits and only allow a select staff to edit articles. This is a "wiki", not an "encyclopedia".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2008
Delete as nom and several previous comments already pointing out problems with ver/notability. The idea that this belongs in an Encyclopedia is a joke, and is really just a cult interest at best. 124.217.247.233 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judgesurreal. No matter how many ways you spin it you can't ignore these issues. Verifiability applies not only to the existence of the source but also to assertions made by the article. i.e., "a Chinese software company" is something that needs to be verified in full, or removed from the article entirely. Notability applies to the importance of the subject, as encyclopedic academia. I'm sorry, but a rom pirate will never meet notable criteria no matter how well you reference it. 207.10.232.238 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge infos/regs into final fantasy vii, not meriting an article of its own. looks like the article already has a metion though.209.190.33.10 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current and salvage some of the references for the mention in the Final Fantasy VII article. Not sure why this spawned a child article. 85.17.237.211 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notice[edit]

Comment There is obviously a slew of single-purpose accounts, proxies and sockpuppetry going on here, for both sides of the issue. I request an administrator boldly close this discussion promptly pending an investigation of User:Kung Fu Man, the suspected sockpuppeteer. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly amazing how two people vote keep and I speak with an admin to see if there's support for my statements, you cry foul. Again. And we see 4 rapid fire one shot accoutns and you claiming sock puppetry. Again. Sorry, but I'm well capable of standing my ground without trickery. I'm tempted to report you, I'll add: I'd love to see you hide behind that good faith shield after this one. However, I'll be quick to point out that this line shows complete bias against the subject: "I'm sorry, but a rom pirate will never meet notable criteria no matter how well you reference it." <- It really negates the weight of your opinion to say such because anything can be notable. Anything. It just has to prove it's weight and purpose.
Oh and Mr. 68.209.235.149, regarding the "calling the troops" line, I direct you promptly to WP:Sarcasm--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Sockpuppet template from this page as this is not the appropriate place to put it: sockpuppet templates are meant to be placed on userpages, not on AfD pages. 68.209.235.149, if you really want to start a sockpuppet case report about Kung Fu Man, do it on WP:SSP, but I think you would need much stronger evidence than your current assumptions. FightingStreet (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice The game is being covered in a variety of blogs which are reliable, but they are little more than signposts pointing to the original article which is itself not published in one of the reliable blogs. Until these sources start doing some actual research and analysis they're little more than a catalogue of who noticed the original post, that's not the basis of an article. I've no problem with the subject or that it's in a separate article, the sources aren't there yet. Someone another 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well repost and condensed, but the other references do add their own info other than only citing the original article, and given they all reference the original shouldn't that lend it credibility? Quality control would cover that too as a notable site wouldn't reference something that was false without a disclaimer, no? (Not disputing you just discussing)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It lends some credibility certainly, but I'm looking for additional building blocks rather than dribs and drabs. The Kotaku, Hobby Blog, Joystiq, GWN and Insert Credit posts, for instance, might be worth referencing for a sentence or two at most, but they're reporting on the blog post and its contents rather than analyzing the game themselves. There needs to be multiple examinations of the game in detail and independent of each other. All the article is right now is a chopped version of a blog post with quips from game blogs looking for filler news. You can't summarize multiple sources to make an article if there's only really one source to start with. If it does get deleted, it can always be reinstated should solid sources appear. Someone another 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tris Katone[edit]

It's unclear whether this artist meets WP:MUSIC. I've had a quick look for supporting cites, but cannot find anything other than the online interview linked in the article to support notability based on those criteria. Again, based on a quick web search, I can't find any evidence of other artists on the record label cited in the article, either. The Anome (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for failing WP:MUSIC as a Billboard search turned up nothing. ArcAngel (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk)
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Zechs Marquise album)[edit]

PROD removed without comment. Album has been announced but that's it. One song that is supposed to appear on the album is on the band's Myspace profile. Other than that, it's all WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no confirmed information. No release date. Nothing. Redfarmer (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's the point of this? There isn't even a Zechs Marquise article (it redirects to the Gundam Wing character). JuJube (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point but there actually is a Zechs Marquise (band) article; the album article just had the link incorrect. I've fixed it. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No untitled record is notable, none is selling, none has sold, none has been commented upon, and the removal of the prod notice is a joke. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all --JForget 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KNT´s[edit]

This one is hard so try and stick with me on the explanations. I have nominated this for multiple reasons. The first big reason is the fact that the author is Gleydson who just happens to be the lead singer for the band. He has written artilces about himself and his band. Now, I don't know if Kopka records is a child of Groove but it is not proven in any of the sources given. The main page and the Kopka records page is in Portugese and I'm not too good at reading portugese. Also, the google searches do not turn up anything. I did another search with different key words and found even less. Let me remind everyone that Gleydson has created ALL of the pages relating to this band. The pages include Thiago Kastan, Fire + Fire In Gv (Ao vivo), The Concert(KNT´s), Today !, Live ! (KNT´s), Gleydson Lopes Khiryakov, and Gleydson (Album). The more I look at the assertations, the more I think it is a hoax. Also, they claim to have been signed to Philips Records but give no album released under it or any proof that they signed with the company. This edit shows that Gleydson added his own band to the list of artists on Philips. This also shows that Gleydson added a false rating to his band's album page. As of now, I cannot believe anything that this band claims. I say Delete Undeath (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, all of it should be decided at this afd. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, and I agree it does not fit WP:N and WP:OR. <3 bunny 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I agree it looks suspicious and not notable at any rate. --Tombomp (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i noticed these articles in passing and spent the longest time debating whether the whole thing sounded real, or if real notable, or not. Now that the issue's come up again, and in the face of the compelling reasoning of Undeath above, i too am going with delete all. tomasz. 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance per WP:NFF. While this film seems to have garnered some notability, it does not yet assert sufficient significance to stand alone. Assertions below that the film has started photography are unverified. Merging retains the information, which can be split as appropriate when this project demonstrably meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy (2008 film)[edit]

Per WP:NFF. Official blog confirms it has not started shooting yet; even the IMDb doesn't seem to list it at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL Beeblbrox (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)After reading the following remarks and reconsidering, Merge seems the best way to deal with this Beeblbrox (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance. JJL (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable here. This future film has recieved substantial coverage in reliable sources as shown by the references section of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter if it hasn't started shooting yet. It is confirmed and was the subject of secondary independent sources, the prime criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Once again Wikipedia:Gaming the system is occurring whereas one clause of one guideline (WP:NFF) is pitted against a contradictory guideline (WP:NOTABILITY). --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to Merge to Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance, per the nom's comments below. Good points. If there is more up-to-date confirmation of shooting beginning soon, then I'd be inclined to have the article recreated. --Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been confirmed by reliable sources. The fact that IMDb doesn't have it yet doesn't really mean anything - existence of a page doesn't confer notability, so it can be inferred that non-existence does not mean it's non-notable. While more sources would be useful, they are sure to come when shooting begins, and it has (just) enough in the meantime to remain. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first of all, holding off on the personal attacks would be appreciated. If you want to see the history and reasoning behind NFF, you are welcome to do so on the guideline's talk page - it was a consensus decision and resulted in the creation of a department at WP Films to both improve appropriate future film articles and delete or merge inappropriate ones. The IMDb lack of linkage is in particular notable because IMDb usually is the one to "jump the gun", so to speak, and add entries for films which are so much as mentioned in passing in industry trade magazines, and it appears that while they did originally have an entry (see the bottom of the infobox), the link no longer works. Looking up the director also shows no mention of the film. As for the notable sources, a quick perusal shows that the film has been supposedly "about to shoot" for two and a half years. This is precisely the why behind the creation of WP:NFF - because a great percentage of films get stuck in what is termed "development hell". Since the financial commitments increase vastly upon the start of the shoot, it tends to be a "point of no return" for a future film, which is why we use that as the standard for articles. I'm not as familiar with some of the cases, but I'm certain that the active editors at FUTFILM can cite a handful of films within the last year even which were weeks away from shooting only to go back into turnaround and never be heard of again. The guideline is not intended to prevent the information from appearing on Wikipedia, but rather to keep it centralized around the source material (in this case the book) until it becomes more or less certain that a split to create a film article is necessary. This actually creates less administrative work in the long run if the film never happens, while also keeping the source material's page comprehensive for the meantime. Thank you for your time, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed, examples include those affected by the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (the high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram). Or (unrelated to the strike) those which are seemingly stuck in perpetual development (Jurassic Park IV, Fahrenheit 451, Logan's Run). Steve ^{T • C} 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per the notability guidelines for future films. This is keeping in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, which permits verifiable coverage but also meets the threshold of WP:NFF since a project that has not begun filming is not guaranteed to actually do so and have a full-fledged article in time. No prejudice against recreation if the article can verifiably show that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after any useful information has been merged into main article. As per my own comments and examples above. Steve ^{T • C} 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what's crystal about it? from wp:crystal: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." the project does exist, and whatever has or has not occurred on the project is at least partially discussed in the article. --emerson7 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It hasn't been nominated under WP:CRYSTAL; it's been nominated under the notability guideline for future films, which stipulates that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, and this has been accepted as the best way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should not be assumed that because a film is likely to be a significant release that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. As I mentioned above, these include the high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, and Shantaram among many others. See also Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and was actually supposed to be released in 2005. We don't even have a separate article for the upcoming Hobbit film yet (note that production of that has been pushed back another year too). The Fahrenheit 451 and Logan's Run remakes are another couple of examples of films seemingly in perpetual development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Until then, there is no reason for the article to exist. I know it must be galling for someone who has put so much work into an article, but there's nothing to stop copying over any useful content to the article on the source material, or creating it in your userspace until production begins (if indeed it ever does). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This film has started production of special effects in Toronto. 16:53, 5 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.55.16 (talk) — 76.67.55.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Production in what sense? Previz? Also, what citations can you offer? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film Ecstasy has started Principal Photography on the special effects shots in Toronto, ON. 13:08, 6 March 2008 (Robheydon (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Can you provide proof of this? Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj Stenberg[edit]

Non-notable actor. Claim to fame is starring in two non-notable films currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigBellyFilm and for providing a voice for the Sweedish dub of A Bug's Life. No secondary source coverage, fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability unestablished, no major roles, fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability per Google, IMDb. JJL (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Deluxe[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; non-notable DJ. Claim of a hit song is unverifiable. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search reveals lots of hits for this guy. His remixes may be notable, but the article does need verifiable citations. Dgf32 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm likewise getting a fair number of hits, but none that appear notable. For someone that reputedly hit #1 on the charts of several European countries, I'd expect some more useful documentation and less irrelevant hits. The article is written with a promotional tone and does not back up claims to notability with reliable sources, which are proving very difficult to find. If someone is able to pull some out from a search, please message me with the search string you used. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The problem is the lack of a record contract or lack of a charting song by definable label. As such, although he may be a hit in the clubs, may be a favorite of disco dancers, we don't have any product whose progress we can track. Further, the article establishes little context and ends up with "DJ of the future." Well, that's a cry for an article of the future. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Elion[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

Jimi Elion

Non-notable company. Claim to fame is producing music for non-notable film currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigBellyFilm. No secondary source coverage. No notability. Fails WP:CORP, WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:CORP and WP:BIO. Neither get any ghits. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Marines[edit]

November 2005 crystal ball article for a game that's still unreleased and does not even have a publisher Beeblbrox (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for it's Über Futureness. Undeath (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CRYSTAL. ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is why all "future" events are deletion candidates. When we let them go, we just end up with gibberish or wasted server space. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article cites GameSpot, a reliable source. Wikipedia has all kinds of articles for future games. The game is in production and screenshots have been released. --Pixelface (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Crystal, indeed. nb: that unreliable gamespot post is 2+ years old. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamespot is a reliable source and sources don't have an expiration date. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) not. 2) an old product announcement not followed-up with substance is a pretty good indication of vaporware. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GameSpot is a reliable source for gaming news and Wikipedia has many articles on upcoming video games. If you can cite a reliable source that says this game is "vaporware", go ahead (Wikipedia has several articles on "vaporware"). --Pixelface (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL as above, and a single review from inclusionist site isn't significant coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see no evidence that the game is still in production, indeed Zero Point Software does not appear to exist at all anymore and these trailers are the only thing they ever seem to have produced. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Andrén[edit]

Non-notable film crew person. Claim to fame is being an assistant camera man on a notable film and various jobs on non-notable films which are currently up for deletion here. No sources, no secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not agreeing to WP:NOTE, also fails WP:BIO Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. He is only a junior champion, not a senior, and the article lacks all sources. Fram (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wilberg[edit]

Seemingly non-notable kayaker. Notability is asserted in being a kayakking champion however a quick search shows no evidence of these victories, nor if these victories are notable in the first place. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wilberg

He is not the biggest kayaker, but he is stil a nordic champion in K2 500 and as a member of the youth national team, this shouldn't be deleted.

Here is a link for the Norwegian championship, wich proves one of the gold medals: [49]

[50] Here is another NM championship when he won in another class. Race number 29.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Michaelsen (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, even if he is a Nordic champion in some sort of kayaking competition (hasn't been sourced), that's still not very notable. JdeJ (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.What if I temporarily delete waht is written about that he is a Nordic champion until I find the source. I've heard that he will soon eat lunch with the mayor of Asker becasue of this and maybe some local news papers will cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Michaelsen (talk • contribs)

Keep. Actually, he is a very notable kayaker and i have seen him many times in the local news paper. MyTemple (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your local paper? I can't prove your comment if the paper name is not given. Undeath (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to verify he meets WP:ATHLETE. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Local newspaper" is the key: this is a local figure who is not on an international venue, not a captain, etc. A young athlete, and there are many thousands of such the world over. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. faithless (^speak) 22:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies[edit]

I believe this article should not exist on Wikipedia because the terms used in the article witch are "Other Ranger" and "Ranger-like ally" are not official and not used by any site or anywhere i know of. What do you think?. Mythdon (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a fannish original research festival to me. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: None of this is original research. The only aspect that is not based in reality is the name of the page, because there is nothing else that covers all of these characters. This nomination is also malformed because there is no AFD on the page. It is just a notification on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there's an issue with naming, fix it. No need to delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's no OR here, and the naming issue is a simple one to fix that should never have required an AfD. Arrowned (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since there is no official title for such Rangers, this is the best title that we can come up with. Placing these Rangers within the standard color categories would be original research. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to Power Rangers: The title is "OR," and therefore it is impossible to search. What, then, is the utility of the article, if no one can find it? Isn't this better as a section in an article that will be read? Isn't it better for the information to put it where it will be seen by those who seek it? It makes no sense as a lost nugget. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, has no sources outside of the Power Rangers shows. The claim by User:Ryulong that none of it is original research, and that the Power Rangers are based in reality, shows how deeply fictional topics dye some people's wool, as it were. Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in no way what I meant. What I meant is that the only thing that has not been written about or appeared in the fictional subject itself is the title of the page. If the page's title was "Other Power Rangers and allies to the Power Rangers" then that would be less of an "OR" title. There is no where that this information can really be merged to. Nothing needs to be deleted here. What Mythdon wants is a different name which is not decided through AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the page is notable enough for its own article. True, it may be considered a small fork of the main Power Rangers article, but there is simply too much content to be put in the one page so it makes sense to split this topic off. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or merge into List of Power Rangers characters. --Pixelface (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like to create a redirect, feel free. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Cinema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has been nominated at least twice before, but remains a largely problematic article that needs to be addressed for real. Past debates have generally resulted in a majority for deletion, but falling short of consensus, with people advocating improvements for the article that never actually occur. As it stands, the article has multiple issues.

1. The very existence of this "company" must be seriously called into question. Michael Legge (filmmaker), is a guy who writes, directs, produces, acts in, etc. his own movies and sells them on the internet. As such, he probably barely qualifies for a WP article under the current guidelines, but not everything connected to him automatically does. His movies have basically no budget. $2000 for a full length movie is nothing. These are not financed or made by any company. "Sideshow Cinema" is merely a name his puts on his movies to give them some appearance of professionalism. When I was in high school, a bunch of people I knew were in bands and made demo tapes and 7" records, and had a "record company" that was much the same thing. This is not a company with actual employees, an EIN, tax returns, board members, etc. It is a name on some zero-budget movies, and the website that sells them. (The website would certainly not meet the website notability guidelines.)

2. That aside, this article is currently 95% mini biographies of non-notable people, not an article on a business. This is not how things are done at Wikipedia. Can anyone point out to me another article that alleges to be abut a company, but is actually a bunch of largely unverified information about all the company's employees? We have many articles on law firms, for instance (see Category:Law firms of the United States, for example), but do any consist of bios of the employees or partners? Or, more relevantly, of anyone vaguely connected to the company? Nor do we see a paragraph on Billy Boyd in the New Line Cinema article. That's not how Wikipedia articles are done. This is a showcase by some fans for a bunch of people who do not meet notability guidelines under current policy. Many of these people, and several of the movies, have been deleted, only to be recreated here. They are not "actors" in the sense that we generally consider. They are amateurs who appear for free in some project their friend does, basically as a hobby. By that sense, I am and actor, and I bet some people reading this is too.

3. Even ignoring that, the article uses circular reasoning for its inclusion of its "members". People are included because this article has decided that anyone who appears in at least two of Legge's videos is a member of Sideshow Cinema. There is no verification of them being members apart from WP's own invented criterion. While it has many footnotes, there is a dearth of reliable sources for this article. Most of them are imdb links that confirm only that a person is listed as cast in a movie (Examples: [51], [52], [53], etc.); Sideshow Cinema isn't even mentioned. Most other "sources" are human interest stories from local papers. Some deal with small local theater productions which do not meet notability guidelines any more than the thousands of other small repertory theaters throughout the country.

This article is a puff piece that is part fansite and part promotional material. Only the first few sentences even pretend to be about the entity in question. Arguments in the past in favor of keeping this have never gone beyond "it exists" (questionable), "i like it", or "it wasn't deleted the last time". All are irrelevant. Past noms have also been muddled by jumbled nominations, with Legge, his movies, and his actors all in the same AFD, leading to confusion; this time we are going to keep it clear. The notability of Legge, or even his movies, is not the issue, just this unverified institution. As even some of Legge's most "notable" movies ("film" is misleading; they're shot with a home video camera) have been deleted (see here, for example), it's pretty clear that any notability ends with Legge himself. He may have done enough to made a name for himself, but his alleged company has not. At the very least, this should be deleted and redirected to Legge. Dismissing the irrelevant actors who clearly don't belong on this page, there's really nothing here that isn't in his own article already. If any of the actors listed have done enough to warrant an article (and I see none that have), that is a separate issue. But it's time to put this monstrosity to bed once and for all. R. fiend (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a couple of decent refs among the chaff here, but this article is mostly a puff piece per the nom. The notability pretty much begins and ends with Legge. The films aren't notable, the actors aren't notable, and the "company" seems to be just a loose assocation if at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is worthy of inclusion. It has been referenced up the whazoo and is notable. Some of the actors are award winners, some have been in other movies apart from Legge's films even having worked with Steve Martin. Fiend has been vandalizing this article for a very long period of time, please look at the editing history where he lies to remove documented and pertinent information. Plank (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, please. Calling the nominator, who clearly put a lot of thought and effort into the nomination, a vandal and a liar does not help your case. Jfire (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "article" is a bunch of biographies, which is not cricket, and the "company" is a label, not an actual production company. I too, have been a record label. There is zero indication that this company, inasmuch as it exists, has achieved note in its field. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent and extensive nomination rationale. The article is essentially a WP:COATRACK for a bunch of non-notable biographies. Jfire (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Legge (filmmaker) as a plausible search term; perhaps some of the material in the introduction could even be merged. I supported keeping in the previous AfD, thinking that there was enough source material about Sideshow Cinema (as opposed to people affiliated with it), but that belief seems to have been unfounded. The article has plenty of sources, but most provide only trivial coverage of the subject. The person seems to be notable, but the production company does not. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this and all associated articles. Death to self-promotion. The existence of these has been a farce for years now. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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