Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete & Redirect to Hayseed Dixie --JForget 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Wanna See Something REALLY Scary?[edit]

Non-notable EP; no third party reviews, no All Music Guide listing, etc. etc. A search for sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 30 April 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)} 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources. Renee (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, even though they do the Monster Mash (it was a graveyard smash!).Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You Wanna See Something REALLY deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too, for exactly the reasons TPH's otters mentioned. No evidence it's notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously non-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Tiptoety ^talk 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Texas[edit]

non-notable rapper, speedy tag's been removed about 8 times FCSundae (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No reliable sources on the rapper. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC, so tagged. And didn't he know the name Little Texas was already taken? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop sleeve[edit]

There are no sources for this article apart from the word "manufacturers". Doesn't appear to be anything more than a dictionary definition. Was prodded but the prod notice was removed without explanation by the original author. Gwernol 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the laptop sleve might possibly be an invention worthy of a Wikipedia article, but, if it is kept, this article needs to be heavily revised. As is, the language is not encyclopedic at all, and the article is too short and has no references. I am not opposed to deleting it, though, because I'm not sure what else could be said about a laptop sleve beyond a mere dictionary definition. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will modify the language to be a little more encyclopedic. Thanks for the advice.Molivolo:Wiki Newbee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molivolo (talk • contribs)
weak Keep, I think it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and I don't think lack of sources really counts as a deletion criterion - WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the fact that this is simply a dictionary definition does. If we removed the unsourced material, we'd be left with a one line dictionary definition., which belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The question is, is there anything beyond the dictionary definition to put in this article? I doubt it. Gwernol 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by WP:SOFIXIT, and I still think it is sufficiently notable for its own article. Weakly though. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No sources not merely is a deletion criterion, it's the most fundamental one on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, there is little more of use here than a dictionary entry, which should be elsewhere. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a definition--they've probably actually been reviewed--even accessories like this get reviewed--, so source could be found .DGG (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a commonly used term for products like this, meaning information can be found in reviews, press releases from companies that manufacturer these products, etc. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete If this belongs in wikipedia it is as a short subsection of an article called laptop bag. But there isn't much more than definition to provide, even for a more general article. There are no "notable" laptop bags. maxsch (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this could be a couple of lines in a larger article about laptops or just a dictionary definition --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless (and until) notability can be established. Because a product has 'probably' been reviewed isn't enough to create (or keep) an article waiting for someone to find such a review. Frank | talk 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: what good would a 'laptop sleeve' review even do for this article beyond providing a source for the definition of 'laptop sleeve.' How could this article ever be more than a definition? I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Merchants[edit]

Character is insufficiently notable to have own article, content wold be better off merged to the various Home Alone films, if it's not already there. No references to support notability. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Into the Home Alone article as suggested above. Renee (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character who has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Into the Home Alone --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara ❤Love 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Pileggi[edit]

The subject of this BLP article is non-notable or of extremely marginal notability (very bit part in X Files tv series). While there is no dispute at the moment, the lack of references and marginal notability make it difficult or impossible to maintain this article at a high standard. Avruch^T 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitch Pileggi since that's what we normally do with marginally-notable-relatives-of-notable-people, as we mention them in the notable person's article. --Rividian (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the same reasons. commentPlease note that the page was not marked with deletion tag initially, but I have done that now. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Bottom(album)[edit]

Not a notable album. Has not been the subject of any independent coverage. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a single of the album with similar notability:

Amrus Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - related articles added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can't find any evidence that this is a notable album, nor can I find evidence that the single is notable. Heck, I can't even find any real verifiable info on the band, so I've added them to this AfD too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and let's delete the label too, for the same reason as above; no notability, no verifaible sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Comment: The label and band could be speedy deleted but I think it would be best to keep them bundled for this AFD. ~ Eóin (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; fails notability. --John (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Wikisource is interested in this, I'm willing to provide the text of the deleted article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum allowable concentration of Pollutants in Atmosphere for Protection Crops[edit]

Appears to be a copy-paste of a law in China. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource; Wikipedia isn't a primary source repository. I'm not too familiar with Wikisource's inclusion criteria, though; if they don't want it, then I recommend delete. If someone were to try and write an article about this law, I would question its notability and encyclopedic value. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cut'n'paste text of English translation of Chinese law. No articles link to this. I'm not sure if this would be worthwhile in the "eyes" of Wikisource. There's no context here. B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marionette Box Theatre[edit]

I can't find anything to establish notability for this band. [1]I feel like a tourist (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7. The article itself said their only output (a demo tape) went nowhere. No establishment of notability at all. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Shinmawa, so tagged. Blair - Speak to me 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global smoking habit[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is an informational health article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems encyclopaedic to me and notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not linked from User:Globalecon/Global_Economics but very similar. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with minor merging to Smoking and Tobacco and health. "If you are one of the 1 billion people who smoke, then you might be interested that this article is an essay". Although AFD is not cleanup, most of the non-fluff information here is redundant with that in Smoking and Tobacco and health. Recommend taking any additional verifiable information from this article, merge it, and deep-six this one. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not written in an encyclopaedic style (e.g., "here are some astonishing statistics that you might want to be familiar with"), but even if it were, the "global" statistics seem to have been thrown in gratuitously for an essay about the health consequences of tobacco. It's an essay from start to finish, with selected stats thrown in for persuasive purposes. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#OR. Deor (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly original research and synthesis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a school essay, violates WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 addition of a source was enough to convince a few folks to support keeping this or at least taking a neutral stance. There's not a consensus to delete, but there's not exactly a consensus to keep either since we only seem to have one published sources on this fellow. It would be helpful if Skysmith could track down the book and add specific citations with page numbers. There's a possibility that the person fails WP:N if the book mentions are only trivial, but we're kind of stymied until we know what's there, and given the keep sentiment expressed below defaulting to that seems the best course for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hewitt (impostor)[edit]

Does this person even exist? There is a vague smell of hoax. A quick Google search does not seem to reveal other than Wikipedia mirrors and other people of the same name. Goochelaar (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is long enough ago that internet refs are unlikely to exist. The article's creator has a large number of good contributions. Hoax seems to be a premature conclusion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article has been on WP since Jan 2004 and it still has no references or citations of any kind. I tried to do various kinds of GoogleSearches and came up with nothing but a bunch of mirrors and clones for the WP article. So far, nothing to indicate that this person even exists and the entry is one giant WP:V problem. I do not find Fabrictramp's comment persuasive in terms of the notability of the subject. If the subject were notable, there would be something about him in some reasonable source somewhere on the Internet. Even if it turns out that this person does exist, it is hard to imagine how WP:N or WP:BIO or any other notability guideline could be satisfied here, given the dearth of Internet references. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Neutral for the time being, pending verification of sources mentioned by Skysmith below(at which time I'll probably change it to keep). I'd still like someone who has physical access to the book to look it up, see if there are newspaper and magazine mentions of the subject cited in the book and, preferably, add them to the WP entry. I hope that the closing admin will give this AfD sufficient time for this. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete pending author User:Skysmith's response. I agree with Fabrictramp that Skysmith's good contribution history (including starting numerous articles on famous impostors) means this is probably not a hoax. But we still need to see sources (and I can't find any on the Internet, Westlaw, or the New York Times archives). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take it on good faith per above that this isn't a hoax, but it still fails WP:V as I cannot find a single corraborating source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the nominator - I am sorry if I have given the false impression of accusing the first contributor (User:Skysmith) of being a hoaxer. I just meant that such a colourful biography of such a colourful character, with no sources to support it, reads somewhat like a made-up story, even if it is not. I apologise if I seemed to imply otherwise. Goochelaar (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and therefore not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources are added as WP:BLP applies (since there is no indication the man is deceased). 23skidoo (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Comment The imposture happened so long ago that there is no reference to it in internet. My main sources are books (and please, no comments "add a link", please). I've included the one reference I remember but I am not home at the moment so I'll have to check the exact pages later. I've used the same book as a reference before. The other I remember is an old Reader's Digest book with a name that escaped me at the moment - Skysmith (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the book reference. I looked it up on Amazon and Barnes&Noble and there is a slight discrepancy in terms of the spelling of the title that other participants should be aware of. Both B&N[2] and Amazon[3] list the title under "Imposters Six Kinds of Liar". However, Amazon has the picture of the cover of the book where the title is "Impostors: Six Kinds of Liar". I am not sure what accounts for the spelling discrepancy but people should probably use the "imposters" spelling when doing searches. About the book itself. I checked and our university library does not have the book and our city library does not have it either. I am not sufficiently interested in the subject to actually order it from Amazon but I'd appreciate some more details from those who have the book. For example, does the book cite any newspaper/magazine articles about Martin Hewitt and his hoaxes? If yes, which articles and where? Are there any other books that mention Martin Hewitt as an impostor? To me, at least, it is important to know this when determining notability. If the only source is the book of Burton, then I do not see the subject as passing either WP:N or WP:BIO. If there are other sources to cite, then maybe. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found several reviews of the "Impostors" book on Westlaw. None of them mentions Martin Hewitt -- which doesn't mean he's not in there, just that someone is going to have to actually find the book to verify this. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I do not have access to the book right now so I cannot actually check. If I remember correctly (and I do have to check), he is mainly mentioned. The book mainly refers to other books (and couple of historical newspaper articles). The other book I remember is the one from the Reader's Digest from the 1980's. As for the Amazon - well, I do not know who inputs the book titles but I have seen several typos myself. And the page of my book does say "Impostors" - Skysmith (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skysmith. Sources don't have to be online, and book reference has been added. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable hoaxer.DGG (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Gwalla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-4[edit]

non-notable. Speedy tag twice removed by creator. FCSundae (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 CEO of a non-notable label, all sources are primary. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itlizard[edit]

Not speedying this as spam, as there's that vague assertion of notability (the award), plus a number of editors seem to have at least glanced at this without being tempted to delete it - but this looks like an unsalvageable piece of spam ("other projects are planned but are considered top secret", indeed!). As always, perfectly willing to be persuaded it's keepable. — iridescent 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now. The award the site won isn't cited and there aren't any other claims of notability. However, with some citations and the removal of some the POV elements (top secret?), I'd be willing to change my opinion. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. KTC (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be a great site, but notability not established. Frank | talk 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of third-party reliable sources to establish notability (I've briefly searched Google News and Books, and found nothing). Jakew (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete --JForget 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WcDonald's[edit]

There is only one source, which is of a screencap of one anime. Do all the others use WcDonalds? Besides, are they truly related? Even if they were, I think it wouldn't be notable enough for its own article. --Jedravent (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somehow this ended up becoming a messy coatrack (not in the very sense of the policy, just in the general word) for every McDonald's parody ever in television and movies. One-off appearances in anime certainly don't establish the notability. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good article, but doesn't seem notable enough. Dwilso 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced fancruft, fails WP:FICT. McDonald's is one of the world's top three brands, and we could have thousands of articles for every time it gets played up in popular culture. We mostly don't need to do that at all and should only permit the ones with exemplary sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft; there're many, many parodies of McDonald's and this one is not any more notable than the others. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Wikipedia is not place for original research. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnotable instance of a common way to parody/avoidance of licensing fees. Fails WP:FICT. Collectonian (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While it's mostly true, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources covering the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coatrackish, as a good chunk of the article isn't about WcDonald's at all. What's there is OR. JuJube (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article on the use of parody versions of trademarks in anime (and in general) could be written, with this as an example, using reliable sources -- the phenomenon has been commented on. But this isn't that article. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Title[edit]

The cited sources are insufficient to show notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and probabaly WP:MUSIC.
Delete References only to social networking type sites - fails WP:BAND. CiTrusD ^{Talk here!} 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent cited sources - no independent coverage, apparently. Relatively new "underground band" would have great difficulty meeting WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Article is premature, to say the least. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female Extension[edit]

The Article in question is quite biased. The sources listed are all written by the artist, miss Sollfrank. Searching Google has yeilded a lack of third party sources. User:Frandlthing 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a promotion for a non-notable... thing. --Damiens.rf 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article for non-notable whatever it is. (Formatting issues in AfD also fixed.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:53, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Comment Check the talk page for some IP rambling in defense of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the art project may have notability, it is impossible to prove without additional scholarly sources. The apperent lack of sources unaffiliated with Sollfrank and her artwork makes an extremely difficult task of editing this entry to reduce bias. The article, as well as the sources, are clearly written from the standpoint of a supporter of "Female Extension" and not a neutral art critic. The focus of the sources is on the purpose of (more specifically the political statement made by) the project, not the overall quality or artistic merit. Anyone can make a political statement and then create a webpage about it, but that does not classify it as having either verifiability or notability. It would seem that this entry was made in an attempt to lend credibility to the project itself, rather than to document the existance and notibility of Female Extension 65.26.156.135 User:Frandlthing 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a lot in the way of available sources regarding the subject. It may be notable, but it doesn't seem to be verifiable on a large scale. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Lack of reliable 3rd party sources. And notability doesn't seem established in the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources, could be notable but no sources to prove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain-tucker (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lamont[edit]

Non-notable radio personality. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are completely ill-advised, also fails notability. Dwilso 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Morning show host on an influential and well-rated radio station in a major U.S. market. I do suggest cleanup work on the article, however. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Lamont is subject of significant secondary coverage from 15+ years of reliable sources (check out this Google News search) in his roles as a radio host and a sports commentator. The article needs significant reworking but notability and verifiability are not valid concerns with this subject. - Dravecky (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish why this radio personality is notable. There are 10's of thousands of DJs, thousands of "voice of _____ University football", they aren't all notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the article again. It's in the lead that this subject is the morning host on a major radio station in a major U.S. market (Miami). --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His employeer is notable, that doesn't make him notable. Notability of people and organizations are judged differently. WP:BIO inisists on significant coverage in 3rd party sources. This article lacks that.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local host on a Miami AM station, no broader claim to notability. At best he rates a one sentence mention in the WIOD article. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence emerges that he's notable per WP:BIO. Jakew (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't understand how people are still claiming non-notability after Dravecky has presented very clear evidence that he is notable per WP:BIO. Why do you want evidence to "emerge" when it's already right there in front of you? Have you actually looked through those search results, which include many articles from the Miami Herald which are about the subject, not just passing mentions? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, article needs work, but here are tons of sources that demonstrate his notability. Claiming to be a host in a major market is sufficient for a claim of notability, and the sources prove it. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, but WP:BIO is trumped by WP:V. There are plainly indepth, reliable articles about the subject, not merely mentioning him in passing. That's the fundamental inclusion criterion. Ravenswing 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and restructure current article actually downplays his notability as his work for ESPN and his Associated Press awards are barely mentioned. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Perez[edit]

Non-notable actress. Most Yahoo and Google hits don't refer to this particular actress. High WP:COI as well ... author Ricabaja (talk · contribs) claims to be Carmen Perez herself. Barely escapes an A7 by the skin of its teeth. Blueboy 96 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, not notable enough, seems to be one of those articles people write about themselves. K C 109 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The article claims to be written by the subject herself. Fails WP:COI. --Porqin (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one role in a film that somebody may have actually seen. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:COI also non notable. BigDunc (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - acting career are very minor roles, which has not generated any coverage in reliable sources. Article is an autobiography and is in fact a copy of the actor's own websites. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actress- Creating her own article certainly appears to be self-promotional and therefore is a conflict of interest, but a COI isn't grounds for a delete. Here is a link to her IMDB profile. As expected, a collection of very minor roles. Her profile also carries the 'self-authored' scent.--Shaggorama (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if it actually was released and sources can be found. Black Kite 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stalin Subway[edit]

I started to take this on as a copyedit project until I realized that the article is completely unsourced. Went on Google and all I could find were press releases, a single review (likely trivial) and the studio's webpage. Appears NN. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fictional game characters are not encyclopedic and should be speedy deleted. Dwilso 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is about a game, not the character in the game. Google has quite a few hits, but it appears to be a rather not-so-well known game.
- Comment I also wasn't implying that the game was unencyclopedic, it just doesn't appear to be notable, based on the lack of independent, non-trivial references on the game. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most I found was a preview from GameSpot, but they never reviewed it. As it stands, should be deleted, but I'll be happy to reconsider if some reviews can be found. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, just a couple previews from 2006 since apparently it has never been released. Captain-tucker (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts' Rule[edit]

Basically a meme whose life started and ended within the walls of the university of Wisconsin. Even the article notes that this has never been published anywhere. Pichpich (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert's Rules of Order, which has nothing to do with this particular "rule", but seems like something that would make a good redirect. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an aphorism with no notability and redirect as Mandsford suggests. At present a Google for "roberts rule site:en.wikipedia.org" does show parliamentary procedure second and some other articles that mention the work, but not the work itself anywhere in the first 100 (10 pages') results. By contrast a Google for "roberts rules" internet-wide brings up our article on the work on the first page of results. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the AFD tag to the article... --barneca (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should always double-check the result of Twinkle AfD noms. Pichpich (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no-redirect. I don't think this title is close enough to "Robert's rules of order" to merit a redirect. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; almost certainly WP:OR. Don't think it is worth a redirect. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Blueboy 96 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhi treats hemorrhoids[edit]

Notability is not apparent in this article Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as notability is not apparent. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Teddy the Law Dog[edit]

Non-notable book by non notable author. Google shows only author's myspace page. AlsoWP:COI only contribution by Jgm219, obviously the author of the "book". Camillus 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No visible notablity. Like they say in Arkansas: this dog don't hunt. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, fails notability. Dwilso 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to strongly fail WP:BK. A total of 2 ghits (both Wikipedia) and a COI aren't helping either. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN. This article is about the fictional character itself? --Porqin (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable. Complete lack of sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, could find no sources --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yodasnews.com[edit]

A non-notable fan-driven web site. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable website failing WP:WEB. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Per WP:SNOW, deleted a non-notable unreleased album from a non-notable (deleted article) band that has never produced another album. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again (album)[edit]

Forthcoming album by a non-notable band (this will be their first album). The article about the band was deleted. Damiens.rf 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus below is that the article subject meets the standard of WP:MUSIC. Darkspots (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Gilad[edit]

The subject does not appear to be notable within his field. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No apparent notability. Fails WP:PROF. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSIC is probably a better basis for evaluating notability in this case, and the international touring and awards seem to indicate notability. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE1DF123CF93BA35753C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon= for one of several articles in the New York Times. Note that there is an Israeli politician by the same name who appears to be notable as well. See http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=716 --Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to satisfy the requirements for musicians. DGG (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excluding the Israeli politician from the search the subject gets 100 hits in the Google News Archive, many of them devoted to the subject, and 7 hits on Google Books. How many of the black punk death groove metal bands that we welcome with open arms get even one mention in such sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eastmain's observation above and my own Google noodling. I just made a few edits to the article, and in doing so, noticed that a lot of this article comes from this reference, and gets dangerously close to violating WP:COPYVIO. Tan | 39 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Redirect to Mission (Christian) Nakon 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission trip[edit]

Article is about Christian missions, which are covered by Mission and Mission (Christian). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mere assertion that the subject is "not notable" is unconvincing when discussing a neutrally written, multiply reliably referenced article. Also, WP:BLP is not violated by this list, inter alia because it is adequately referenced and does not serve primarily to mock or disparage its subjects. The valid "delete" arguments, of which too few have been made, focus on issues pertaining to our project's scope, as reflected in WP:NOT#IINFO / WP:NOT#DIR. Sandstein (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

Please note that this has previously been nominated a bit over a year ago. I hope that times have changed for Wikipedia, as I see little to no value in providing a list of people who have been "pied", quite the contrary actually and I think WP:BLP would advise against such a list. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable, unless you are a Moe Howard fan. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to pieing. Keep per below. It does happen, as with Bill Gates, and as someone points out, it's a form of assault that is used to get publicity (and it usually works because the evidence of the assault is so visible). Analogies to swirlies and Three Stooges are kind of humorous, but not relevant. The incidents enumerated here are not at all funny. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far too big to merge which is the likely reason it has a seperate article in the first place. Seems full sourced. Confirmed. this is a fork of Pieing --neonwhite user page talk 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Not very notable but well-referenced.--Jerrch 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No argument made as to what part of this article violates WP:BLP (in fact, I think it supports it very nicely), or what has changed on wikipedia since it was previously nominated. Notability of topics for articles depends on the number of third parity reliable sources discussing it. The article is very well sourced and interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Makes about as much sense as List of people who have had their tires slashed or List of people who have been given swirlies. Not even encyclopedic enough a topic to mention in the subjects' own articles, much less in its own list. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If either of those had multiple notable cases that have been reoprted by reliable sources then those article would be acceptable too. --neonwhite user page talk 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pieing is historically an act to show political dissent in a very public way. That's why the list is of notable public figures (e.g. Bill Gates and Ralph Nader). If publically slashing tires or giving swirlies ever become a popular form of political protest (an idea I'm not completely opposed to :), it would be reasonable to have an article on it. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have had their houses picketed, then. Pieing is like any other form of protest - usually not notable. What is it about pieing that gives it any special importance over other non-notable protest gestures by non-notable people? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reported in multiple verifiable sources making it notable. This is what notability is based upon. --neonwhite user page talk 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources cited in this article. Out of 71 citations I see exactly 10 to notable, reliable sources: 3 to CBS News, 2 to abc.au, 1 to the CBC, 1 to UPI, and 3 to local media outlets in Cincinnati, Providence, and Grand Rapids. Of the rest, 17 cite to a single anarchist "pieing" advocacy website, entartistes.ca, many others are to other non-notable or unreliable anarchist websites such as Indymedia, Eat the State, the Biotic Baking Brigade, and antimedia.net. Other citations include blogs, YouTube, and Flickr. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found anarchist journalists to have surprising good reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. But, point taken. This is why we have {{refimprove}} -- Scarpy (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its too big an article to merge, its also well referenced Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too many references to call it not notable, well sourced, and a really good example of what a list should be. Merge would be too bulky for pieing. Jim Miller (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this would be too big to merge, and it's well-sourced and notable enough to not delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly nn. Either delete or add the Piper of Hamelyn. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Because IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. I don't understand how this particular article meets notability criteria and the article would seem to be a spam magnet with many of it's "references" being to video and other media. Does List of people that have been egged exist? How about List of people that have been floured? List of people that have been covered in fake blood? If the pieing is notable it is easy enough to place the information in the individual's article. Just my thoughts Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually a fork from the main article due to size. --neonwhite user page talk 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, well sourced and populated with notable people. "Pie in the face" is a notable (if silly) form of expression that receives great attention when it is applied to political leaders in particular. As with all these types of lists, should be policed to make sure no unverified claims are made (especially any that violate WP:BLP), but as it stands now it's sourced, a notable topic - that makes it viable. It could stand to use a better introduction, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject, featuring notable people. One of the things (but not the only) that sets pieing apart from other possible forms of protest mentioned above is that there are groups set up specifically to engage in pieing and there are no such groups for those forms mentioned above (e.g., I’m not aware of any groups set up specifically for egging people in protest or slashing tires, etc.). Perhaps a more specific title for the article would be appropriate. Something along the lines of “Public figures and authorities who have been pied in protest” to clarify that pieings in slapstick performances and such is not within the article’s topic. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting list, populated with notable individuals and with information sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Most useful on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this list has an unambiguous selection criteria, clear scope, is verified by reliable sources and as the act is a well-defined and documented form of direct action, the list is non-frivolous. Skomorokh 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This list is about a milder form of political protest than List of assassinated people, but much better sourced than that list — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable list. Notability for the list criterion is not established, and I disagree that it is notable at all. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - both the activity of pieing and practitioners the Biotic Baking Brigade are both notable, as verified by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Specific pie incidents account for dozens of news articles in highly respected outlets (NYT, WaPo, SF Chronicle etc.): Google News results. How on earth is it non-notable?! Skomorokh 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps pieing is notable, but that is not at issue. Why is a list of people who have been pied notable? What is notable about this list criterion, that these people so listed have been pied? It seems awfully arbitrary to group people according to this criterion. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is based on the number of independent third party reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response That is false, and contradicts WP:BLP and similar policies entirely. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's completely true. According to the general notability guideline a topic is presumed notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:BLP just builds on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR with respect to articles about living people. Let me ask you this: if this was a list of people who are now dead who were pied while they were alive, would you still have issues with it? -- Scarpy (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a trivia list article and therefore a violation of WP:TRIVIA. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a shrewd argument. I just had a look at WP:TRIVIA and for the life of me I can't find anything in there about deleting articles with lists. I did find this advice pretty interesting: "In this guideline, the term 'trivia section' refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists as notability has been established through verifiable sources and persuasuive arguments made throughout this discussion. The discriminate topic has real world significance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and well referenced. Ford MF (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
peeK no explainable reason to delete. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Delete per WP:BLP#Basic human dignity Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be written from a NPOV to me. --neonwhite user page talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has it really come to this, an encyclopedia with a list of people being pied? Alientraveller (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this violates the Basic human dignity, since most of the enteries where pied in an act of protest rather than hijinks. They are also not notable "only" for the pieing, so the second part of that section is also not applicable. Now I am not for Hijinks pieing beeing listed, so any enteries that fall under that catagory should probably be deleted as par Septers point, but the article itself does have scolorly merit...if you research protests and protest methods.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When notable people are "pied" it's often newsworthy. That's evidence of its notability. This list is neutral and thoroughly sourced. It does not catalog derogatory information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pie does not deprive one of basic human dignity. As Skomorokh notes, pieing is a direct action. I would suggest a compromise regarding those who feel there is a WP:BLP concern. The list should be restricted to individuals who have articles independent of their having been pied. If we include everyone who has been demonstrably pied the list would lose its point, and already includes too many irrelevant piefaces. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Current article does not show criteria for inclusion; thus as it is, any person who was hit by a pie would be eligible for inclusion (we'll "overlook" the one entry of someone being hit by salad dressing, which, the last time I checked, was not a pie). As a result, this article would always be incomplete and impossible to maintain. B.Wind (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many lists on Wikipedia will always be incomplete. That's why there's a standardized template to put at the top of the list. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That in itself is a nonissue. The more important one is the inclusion criteria for the list - there are none listed in the article, this making the issue of inclusion a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, there is no indication as to whether the contestants of Double Dare who were pied would be included, or virtually the entire cast of The Great Race or much of the cast of Blazing Saddles (amongst other motion pictures and television programs) would also be listed (and why or why not). The purpose of the {{Incomplete}} template is bring to attention that an incomplete article should be brought to completion, not to identify or justify an article that would be impossible to be complete (which, by the way, is grounds for deletion). As the list article exists, it either violates the WP:NPOV policy or the guideline that indicates that an article that is impossible to complete shouldn't be kept. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This list was forked from the pieing article, which very explicitly discusses pieing in a political sense, the criteria from the list are implied from the article. The context is crystal clear. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionwhere did you find the guideline that said if an article is impossible to complete it should be deleted. I just have never run by that one, and find it waaaaaaaaayyyyyy to ambiguous (can any article really be complete?) granted I am ignoring your blatent "either or" fallicy in logic which can be addressed after you answer this question.

I agree with Scarpy. This concern is purely hypothetical. In actuality there's no ambiguity in this list, and thus we can conclude that the inclusion criteria is clear, if not yet articulated. The distinction is between people who are pied as some sort of consensual entertainment and people who are not complicit in their pieing but rather were targeted as a form of direct action. As with everything on Wikipedia, we can depend on reliable sources to make the determination for us. That which can't be resolved with reliable sources (a minority of the cases, if any) should simply be removed. The distinction between pieing qua culture jamming and qua slapstick is never ambiguous (although prohibiting the inclusion of people without articles would make this yet clearer). --JayHenry (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the {{Incomplete}} template, but rather {{Dynamic list}}, which is for lists that can never be made complete (examples include List of Jewish anarchists, List of composers of African descent, and List of record labels). Where is the policy that says such lists can be deleted simply because they can't be made complete? Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists indicates (correctly) that Wikipedia will always have incomplete lists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Valid topic per Wikipedia:Lists. Well-sourced article, notable topic and verifiable by reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Hats off to Scarpy for his or her research. I am concerned that some of the BLP arguments are distortions of BLP's intent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Alientraveller. I don't care if it has 6,000 sources; having a pie thrown at one may generate a short burst of coverage, but its lasting impact is almost always zero, and if greater, can always be included in that individual's biography. Biruitorul (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blatant advertising. Blueboy 96 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Two[edit]

This could probably be speedied as spam (sole editor User:Mediatwo) but bringing it over to give it benefit of the doubt. Spammy and fairly blatant advertising, and I can't personally see any way it could be cleaned up, and the company doesn't appear to be notable enough in their field to warrant their own entry — although I'm more than willing to be persuaded otherwise. — iridescent 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. External links are either company's website or unrelated. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G11 and G12. It's spam -- plain and simple. It's also a copyvio with over half the article directly copied from their homepage. Granted, the copyright holder almost certainly did the copying themselves, but we can't be assured of that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Clear consensus forms that named geographical features, such as rivers, are notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izvoru Mic River[edit]

Is this river notable enough? I can't find anything on it. Could it possibly be merged to a larger article or list?I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am inclined to think that all geographical features are notable, in the same way that cities and towns are, in part because I do not want to get into a debate about how many cubic metres per second of flow is necessary before a river is considered notable. The article is sourced to two books or organizations for which no link is provided, but the first one seems to be the government's land survey or land registry office and the second one Romania's institute of hydrology and meteorology, so they both sound reliable. If there is an online atlas of Romania, further details might be available there. Latitude and longitude for both the source and the mouth would be helpful. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:Notability (geography). Named rivers are usually notable. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Named rivers are almost always notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus that geographical places (and features) are notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Find me a non-notable river, I've never heard of one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Places are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koshmo[edit]

I can't find any information on this village other than finding its name on a map or on a list of villages in Kyrgyzstan. Is it notable enough to have its own article??I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we normally have articles on all villages and the like. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Places like this are inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous editors and WP:Notability (geography). Tnxman307 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All villages are notable, and verifiability is confirmed by the map and list consulted by the nominator and by GEOnet Names Server. ---Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machocore[edit]

None notable genre, seems to be based entirely on original research, just another word with 'core' added to it by someone neonwhite user page talk 18:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletecore! as an unsourced neologism that seems to be original research. ~ mazca ^talk 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, unsourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced neologism. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fagcore - per it being neologism, OR and just plain not a real genre. Man I hate how fans of crap like this talk. I can't make sense of what they're saying. Sorry, I speak English, not idiocy/dumbass. "OmG!RoFlmGo! yU Gyz beLeev tHis!!!!! h8 teh rap buTt gr8sp r gud! Whut you? IOAJpksdfapKFP!" Time to pwn some n00bs. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stay on topic. You do not add to this deletion discussion with that kind of talk. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although google indicates people do use this term, there do not seem to be any reliable sources to back it up. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient notability is established. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Youra[edit]

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:PEOPLE. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is supported by three newspaper articles, suggesting continued notability over a period of years. On the other hand, Youra is head of the Olympic Peninsula Travel Association, which is now at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Peninsula Travel Association. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of the newspaper articles is basically just a promotional feature for a service set up by the subject though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm feelin a little bit picked on here everyone is trying to give my hard work the AXE. I will be working to establish notability and be providing more references. Allot of the material press releases I have are from old news papers but not on the web. How can I use past news articles that predatre the internet to establish notability? Also for those of you who wish to torpedo my work, I would like to request that you offer suggestions as to how it could be made worthey of Wikipedia material rather that just simply touting it as spam or advertising. jwsnyder101 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.4.197 (talk) [reply]

It's fine to use newspapers that pre-date the internet so long as they're references properly. Some users have access to LexisNexis so these can be found online in any case. However, note that media coverage should be independent of the subject to establish notability, which press releases are not. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the evidence is a bit weak. Can you find anything else? Bearian (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, editor-in-chief of an apparently includable book, so includable himself. --Oldak Quill 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Saroyan[edit]

Subject does not satisfy wikipedia criteria for notability of creative professionals. Being the author of one book and a columnist is not sufficient given the requirement that the subject should be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and should have "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I just don't see it --- contested prod so here we are. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Check the references. They are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and therefore she's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my reading of the guidelines is that the work has to be considered significant and or well-known in addition to having multiple reviews. Not just having reviews. Note: "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" -- the *which* implies that both - not just one - are required. I see no evidence that the single publication satisfies the requirement. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The multiple reviews in major publications are precisely what demonstrate that the subject's book is a "significant or well-known work". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She is a legitimate author with a book out from mega-publisher Random House, which is no small feat. The book has been reviewed in plenty of secondary WP:RS: [4]. She clearly meets WP:BK. A writer doesn't need to have the influence of Hemingway to qualify for a WP article. It's quite sufficient to have a powerhouse publisher and legitimate industry reviews. She's definitely a keeper, with her other publications adding to her notability, and in fact the article should be expanded. Qworty (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable author. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to project space, redirect tagged with {{db-g6}}. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex work types[edit]

The first edit summary of this article reads "created this page to organize tasks for the sex workers work group". I'm not sure what that means but it sounds either like a joke, or the mistaken creation of an article to fill the task of a WikiProject or task force. The content of this article is too bewildering to be useful, to say the least, and per "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", it should be deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Delete. If this was a newly-created article I'd probably assume good faith by the creator in that they were probably working on cleaning it up. But it's been here a month now and it's still not even clear what the purpose of the page is, and it's generally a big incomplete mess. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space seems like an obvious choice and to me falls under G6 as an uncontroversial housekeeping task. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Dhartung (but without knowing more about wikiprojects, I do not know to where). This would be a useful list to have in project space, but in mainspace... it just isn't encyclopaedic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Wizardman 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aozora Bunko: A[edit]

A WP:LIST of texts contained in the Aozora Bunko. While the main topic may be notable, 23 alphabetical lists of the texts contained in it are not. To break WP:OSE, we don't have a list of texts in Project Gutenberg, and for good reason. These individual lists are mostly filled with redlinks and do not have any other pages linking to them. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - JulesN Talk 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because there are probably no possible third-party sources for this list. WP:NOTDIRECTORY ~~isn't a criterion for deletion, but it~~ certainly applies in this case. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wikipedia is not a directory which is certainly a criteria for deletion. It comes under 'Content not suitable for an encyclopedia' at WP:DEL#REASON --neonwhite user page talk 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I thought I'd read that deletion couldn't be based on WP:NOT somewhere, but I can't find it now, so I guess I was wrong about that. Still recommend deletion, though. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to keep such a catalog. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Project Gutenberg analogy. I would think linking to the Aozora Bunko copy of the text in the article on the text would suffice, if and when an article on the literary work is started. I've gone through five bluelinks-- A through D-- looking for such an example, and every one of them is mis-linked... Dekkappai (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, hold on - do we have a Wikimedia project for directories of this nature? Like Wiktory or something like that? ViperSnake151 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed that this is, indeed, being a directory of Aozora Bunko texts, in a way that Wikipedia defines itself as not being. It would be a really good idea if, as much as possible, the text could be added as an external link to each article for the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a purely administrative note, shouldn't all of these articles be tagged with the AFD template? Neier (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do all need the tag. Every single one of 'em. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the original creator of those articles. And I believe that the creation was a mistake. I had admitted that a long time ago, and somehow the community decided to keep them for reasons I don't understand. I add, to everything said, that the lists are horribly out of date. Good job for finding them. I have completely forgotten about them. -- Taku (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Breslin[edit]

Non-notable local broadcaster whose only claim to fame is that he promised to strip naked if Ireland won the Eurovision song contest, so fails WP:BIO1E.
Note that the previous AFD referred to someone else BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Article fails to assert any notability beyond the "naked bet" (non)event. Therefore likely fails Wikipedia:BIO#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Guliolopez (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One bet doesn't make notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The best keep rationale was provided by RGTraynor who provided evidence of some coverage in secondary sources, however this coverage does not seem to be significant and as such the subject fails WP:BIO#Politicians. Absolutely no prejudice against recreation if Harte's notability increases.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Harte[edit]

Non-notable politician from Letterkenny in County Donegal, Ireland. A local councillor (so not automatically notable per WP:BIO#Politicians), and there is no sign of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO's main criteria. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be notable. It just needs a reference or two. But thats no reason to delete it Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It needs evidence of notability, per WP:BIO, not just an assertion that he "seems to be notable". Per WP:BIO#Politicians
  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  "a reference or two" is not enough: we need substantial coverage, otherwise the article will be deleted, like dozens of other non-notable biographies every week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty confused here. It seems to me that according to WP:BIO#Politicians he is automatically notable. Please remember: members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. As a member of the Donegal County Council, wouldn't this make him clearly covered?--Aldux (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Donegal County Council is not a "provincial legislature" -- it doesn't have the power to pass legislation, and has never had such a power. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a provincial legislature, but a county council is an elected adminstrative body rather than legislative body. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If what you say is true, than it must be immediately made clear at WP:BIO. North Americans and Aussies probably take this simply for granted, as they live in federal states, but in the rest of the world this notion is highly confused and blurred; I myself would have difficulties awnsering if Italian regions are in or out of such a definition.--Aldux (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surely it's fairly clear that a County council does not pass legislation?
      In any case, there have been plenty of precedents at AFD where it has been accepted that local councillors are not automatically notable: see e.g. Clifford T. Reid and Sahron Haughey. It doesn't mean that councillors cannot be notable, it just means that they need to demonstrate notability in the usual way through substantial coverage in reliable sources: e.g. Daithí Doolan was kept, because such coverage exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but all the examples you gave me are seriously flawed and inaccurately described. To begin with Daithi Doolean, the motivation for keep wasn't at all the coverage: the closing administrator was very clear: "Regardless of coverage or not, city councilmen from major cities [...] are inherently notable". As for the other two, Clifford T. Reid was a member of the Athy Urban District Council, which means a sub-sub-national elected body; to be sub-national, he would have to be a member of the Kildare County Council, from which the Athy Urban District Council depended; so it was an obvious delete. An obvious delete was also Sahron Haughey, as it also is a sub-sub-national body. To be sub-national, he would have to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.--Aldux (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, it's not complicated: Donegal County Council does not pass legislation, so it is not a legislative body, and therefore there is no automatic presumption of notability. That's all; there's no need to get into theological distinctions about whether the existence of the NI Assembly makes district councils in Northern Ireland a lower level of body than district councils in England.
        If you want this article to be kept, it needs evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, to demonstrate notability. So far we have evidence that he exist and holds office, but that's not the same as notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. No references other than personal website. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm not convinced of the notability of his position either. That being said, there are 22 hits on the Irish Google News. [5]. RGTraynor 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for that link. I see several stories which mention Harte, mostly in the context of the elections, but I don't see that he is the subject of any substantial coverage, as required by WP:BIO#Politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Council members don't achieve notability by being on a (community, village, city, or county) council - for that matter, some mayors would have difficulty clearing the notability bar. More is needed here. B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments top keep are stronger than those to delete. The fact that as KleenupKre says, the article is not about Schindler, rather a bunch of cases he was involved in, makes this a fairly easy decision. Copyvios also not helping. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Schindler[edit]

Multiple issues. WP:COATRACK article on non-notable attorney shot through with copyright violations. Justallofthem (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Those were some high-profile cases he prosecuted as an AUSA. I don't see that his private practice has kept him notable, but notability doesn't expire. It's a terrible article, though, and doesn't need to rehash each and every case (assuming that isn't the copyvio part). --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent WP:COPYVIO and WP:COATRACK article. The article is hardly about Schindler at all, it is about several cases he was (somehow) connected to but says little about his actual role in them. Some of those cases are notable and have their own articles, some are not. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been mentioned on a few lawblogs just of late in relation to Church of Scientology actions (of themselves notable) ^[1] I only found this page because I was checking to see if he had a bio page to update accordingly. (but remove all the crud) Can the copyright violations please be pointed out on the talk page. Jaymax (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Being involved with semi-high-profile clients doesn't, by itself, confer notability. If he had advanced some novel argument that others have used successfully since, or had he gotten some client off when nobody thought it was possible, perhaps...but I don't see notability here. Frank | talk 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An attorney's clients do not make one notable per se; a lawyer must be in the news himself or herself to be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, seems to be significant. Article needs to be cleaned up and copyvio text removed. --Oldak Quill 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ Above the Law - A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession - Latham & Watkins to Free Stress Tests?

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fist Of Dishonor[edit]

"Fist of Dishonor dress up as ninjas, fight audience members, and play rock songs..." Is that cool or what? Kids nowadays! In their endeavors they have garnered a tiny bit of attention, such that they might marginally qualify under WP:MUSIC criteria 1 for bands, "Subject of multiple non-trivial published works" per the references at the bottom of the article. I suspect that they don't qualify, but I hope they do: if Wikipedia can't have articles about bands that dress up as ninjas and fight audience members, what ultimately do we stand for? Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Their show must be a lot of fun, but they don't meet basic notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though that vote makes me sad. The world needs more bands like this but the only decent source is pretty weak and this really doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca ^talk 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:the band fails notability, and also seems unencyclopedic though edits could be made I still lean toward delete. Dwilso 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bandJasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable and unencyclopedic. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; interesting but not very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitardude3600 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a large, regional sports association and the consensus was that it is sufficiently notable to be kept. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Soccer Association[edit]

From speedy, seems borderline to me at worst. I don't know if entities like this are considered notable or not. Has existed since 1964. Website here. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not much of an article, but the website says that 175,000 players are currently registered in its 123 member programs, that it's been in existence for more than 40 years, and that it has publications, making it unusually large for a sports organization. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of articles for the English County Football Associations, and I don't see why this is any less notable. Bettia ^(talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EQATEC Profiler[edit]

Non-notable software, just released. Weregerbil (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—(I'm the author) Agree to lack of software's notability. The issue of .NET CF code-profiling has, however, much merit as the lack of any available code-profiler has been eagerly discussed at least since 2003. This article describes the current state of affairs, but I agree that a more suitable article topic would have been e.g. "Performance analysis tools for .NET CF". That topic may not warrant an entire article, though, as there are unfortunately very few such tools available for those brave souls doing embedded programming on .NET Compact Framework. Ricflams (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No support of independent reliable sources to establish notability of new software package. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. This was previously speedied under two other titles--Sovereign Kingdom of Kemetia and King Adam of Kemetia. Author Hemmings (talk · contribs) has been blocked as well, as he has no constructive contributions whatsoever.

King Adam[edit]

A kid who invented his own country. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sheesh, what detail. Still non-notable though. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's had fun, but Wikipedia is not for a kingdom made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperspeed Delete - This goes beyond Speedy Delete. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for what I hope are obvious reasons. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure this guy could do better things with his imagination than making a doomed Wikipedia article. ~ mazca ^talk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost 19 years old, probably lives at parents' house, and probably doesn't own any land, let alone a kingdom. Good luck to you, Mr. Hemmings; I hope at least that you've got a job flipping burgers so you have some spending money. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm avoiding the temptation to drop Monty Python references here. Just delete it. Hilarious reading, though. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, "He has'nt released any of his own work yet but critics say that it will be worth the wait." We'll wait. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Deuce[edit]

non-notable rapper — speedy tag was removed by creator FCSundae (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, makes no claim no notability. "Anticipated mixtape" release. Weregerbil (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Warhorus (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A7, no assertion of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Aurocks[edit]

The result was Redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems hoaxy, or otherwise confused with Aurochs, which a page already exists for PirateMink 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC) PirateMink 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The word Aurocks gets a number of hits in Google books, so it appears valid. It is probably an alternate spelling, in which case a redirect to Auroch would be appropriate.—RJH (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auroch, appears to be what the article means. Not an entirely unlikely (mis-)spelling variant. Weregerbil (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aurochs. (Auroch is itself a redirect}. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much One Hit Wonders[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable album - no reviews, no third party sources, no album art. MuchMusic is notable, and almost nothing here is a red link, but I don't see any standalone notability for this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 24 April 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)} 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable compilation album. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article cites no sources. Searches indicate that there are no independent, reliable, third-party sources available. No means to assert notability of subject. Fails the notability guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not "Much" of an article. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Found to be non notable, per WP:ATHLETE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Gause[edit]

Per WP:ATHLETE this person has never played in a professional game and is therefore not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He does play for the colts, but still not notable enough. Dwilso 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He does not have any professional stats; even if he's technically on the roster of the Colts. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Despite his theoretical attachment to a highly notable team, he doesn't appear to have done anything at all with them. I'd say he's completely non-notable until he actually plays, at the very least. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played for NFL Europe, which was the highest level of American football in Europe, thus meeting WP:BIO. --B (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He may have been on the roster, but there is no record of him actually competing. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the policy says "competed" -- not played. Does this matter? Bearian (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) See the discussion here: [6]. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Played = competed; let's not split hairs here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carvoeiro, Azores[edit]

There is no such place as "Carvoeiro" in the Azores. It is unclear why it was created in the first place. Since it only links to a list of real places, and nothing links to it, it should be deleted to reduce confusion. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am also nominating the following related page because it is just another version of the first page ("Azores Islands" rather than "Azores"):

Delete both per nom. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Corvo, Azores, which is located on Corvo Island. It may be what they were thinking about in the first place. It doesn't appear that these were ever anything but incorrect redirects to the Carvoeiro disambiguation page, until someone wrote "There is no places named Carvoeiro in the Azores." for both articles. Corvo, Carvoeiro, potato, potahto, redirects are cheap Mandsford (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it extremely unlikely for someone to type either of these titles whens searching for the Corvo Island. Unnecessary re-target. Hús ö nd 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the entry is Corvo, then there should be a Corvo page (there may be -- I haven't looked), but there is no reason in Portuguese to link Carvoeiro to Corvo. Let's just start clean with Corvo, and leave the re-direct out of it. (Certainly there was no link from the old Carvoeiro, Azores nor of the Carvoeiro [conselho of Lagoa] to Corvo.) It's like have a redirect from Toronto to Turin (Italy) or Torun (Poland).... I still argue for deletion.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question. Shouldn't this discussion be at RfD rather than AfD? Both of these pages were created as redirects rather than articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Per nom. Hús ö nd 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete & redirect to Subatomic particle Black Kite 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Atomic[edit]

Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wipe and redirect The article fails WP:N and should be redirected Subatomic particle as Subatomic is already directed there.--Pmedema (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trance project which has no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC, and redirect the page to Subatomic particle as Pmedema suggests. ~ mazca ^talk 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler King (American Football)[edit]

Per WP:ATHLETE this person has never played in a professional game and therfore is not notable - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Undrafted free agent, never played a regular-season NFL game, nothing notable about his college career. --Finngall ^talk 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking delete however, if he actually played a game for Rhein Fire than he meets notability criteria for playing at the "top level". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFL Europe is the highest level of American football in Europe and he did play for the Rhein Fire. Even if he hadn't, there is nothing that says that a player has to play in a regular season game to be notable. NFL players are notable period. --B (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy is not clear - it says "compete", not "play". Bearian (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I've started a discussion here [7]. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In American football (as in most team sports), one cannot compete if he cannot play in a game. B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete for now. No prejudice against recreation if/when....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Franks[edit]

Undrafted rookie NFL free agent. Non-notable college career, no notability per WP:ATHLETE. A7 speedy was declined. There should be no prejudice against recreation if he actually makes the team and plays in a game. --Finngall ^talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but, place relevant information in the "undrafted" section of the 2008 NFL Draft article. Not yet played at the highest level but, very well may come the preseason. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If he becomes notable, bring back the article. (Hits exist but only in the context of game play, college bio, or draft status...nothing establishing notability.) Frank | talk 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet there. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Vinnedge[edit]

Per WP:ATHLETE, this individual has not yet played in a professional game and therefore is not notable - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I think it deserves to be kept. First of all, he has "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (from WP:ATHLETE). Also, there is a good chance he will play in an NFL game at some point, and then this article will just be created again. Noble Story (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I now concurr with Fingall. Noble Story (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if he actually makes the team and plays. I've been speedy tagging quite a number of other articles on other undrafted free agent rookies by the same author, and most have been confirmed. Only a small percentage of these guys actually see the field in a regular season game, and until they do, they aren't notable. --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but, place relevant information in the "undrafted" section of the 2008 NFL Draft article. Not yet played at the highest level but, very well may come the preseason Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). A merger can be dicussed on the talk page, but would require consensus to implement. Sandstein (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAFTA's Impact on US Employment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/NAFTA's Impact on US Employment

Essay article that has come from a project that seems to specifically adding essays to Wikipedia at User:Globalecon/Global Economics. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I think this is not so bad an article, comparatively. It may need to be merged with the main NAFTA page, but I would say that just because it is part of the ill-fated school project doesn't mean it should be deleted. Noble Story (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge relevant details to main NAFTA page Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it's notable enough to keep as a main article. Noble Story (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It looks as good as a normal Wikipedia article and contains useful information. At the most we should merge but deletion would be such a waste of information... and time. -- penubag (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment It seems to me that after so many bad articles were created by the school project, there is now a backlash against other any new articles created. In reality, I think that if this was a "normal" new article, it would be kept. Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Noble Story on this. -- penubag (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very most merge. This is a useful, well written article, properly referenced, unlike most of the (absolutely dire) ones produced by the GlobalEcon school project so far. It just needs some wikifying. I entirely concur with Noble Story's comments re judging each article on its own merit and avoiding backlash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and either merge or rename. Merging may be undesired, since the main NAFTA article is large enough, and merging this well referenced information back into the article would be against WP:SUMMARY. The name may need to be tweaked, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properly sourced with significant coverage. Motive is not a reason to get rid of an otherwise acceptable article. Jim Miller (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable article. It's a subarticle from the main NAFTA page, so a merge might be undesirable as Jayron32 says. I think this just needs some cleanup. Compared to the rest of the stuff to emerge from that class, this is quite good). Bfigura ^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised to agree, but this is a reasonable stab at an article that fits into the project. I suspect it would be better titled and scoped as Effects of NAFTA in the United States or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems ok. Most of the sources are garbage, though. I guess that is what you get when you are looking for the two extreme viewpoints on NAFTA. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Really belongs in the NAFTA page, surely; based upon the usefulness of a page on the effects of the impact upon US Employment, if page kept as is, you could argue that pages based detailing "impact upon country X" should also be created. Given the driving point is the NAFTA agreement, which has a page, relevant, sourced information from this page should be merged there, given it's a direct cause/effect relationship. Minkythecat (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if sources could be found for those pages (impact on x), and NAFTA was deemed to have a notable impact on employment there, I wouldn't see the harm in creating the artices. At present, this is a sub-page of the NAFTA article, so merging back probably isn't needed per WP:SUMMARY. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was just going to say the same thing as Bfigura. Plus, the NAFTA article is already quite long. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the poster children for the innate lack of merit of the insta-AfD approach. Given that the subject's been on the lips of every populist politician since NAFTA was created, to suggest that the subject is unencyclopedic is mind-boggling. Let's give this some time, perhaps? RGTraynor 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article works for me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever's salvageable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to be withdrawn now since it's obviously going to be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.I.P.O.[edit]

Unsourced neologism, no evidence that it is widely used, reported on, ... WP:NEO says it all, basically. And it fails WP:V as well, of course. Fram (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, belongs in dictionary not hereJasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much the stereotypical neologism article: term invented just this year, not in widespread use, no sources. Even a dictionary wouldn't accept this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO - I would say this article should P.I.P.O, no ? --Triwbe (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism.--Berig (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.I.O. Bug[edit]

Unreferenced article which does not assert notability, and reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia article -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three paragraphs are taken directly from here Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems a pretty non-notable toy. The article hasn't really been fixed since it was first created. per the above comment (which unfortunately isn't signed) it is also copyvio. Also the New York Times article that reports on sales figures is behind some kind of wall.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some of their products - such as Robosapien and arguably the Dragonfly - may well be notable, this one was probably only notable in terms of the company's history and Mark Tilden's involvement. The NYT article is good, and discusses it in considerable length, but in essence the article is about why the toy was unsuccessful. - Bilby (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iuput II[edit]

this page, like many others created or edited by User talk:Egyptzo, is basically copyvio from [8] and [9], deleting the copyvio will leave virtually nothing. I'm too busy clearing up other stuff to work on it (user is banned for 48 hours for other copyvio--Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

delete as copyvio. The article may be relevant and useful to people and the subject may be notable enough for his own article but, it is copyvio. Maybe when, the user returns we could encourage him to use the things he is copying as sources to create legit articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep with major revisions. This king existed and there is a legitimate image of him by Captmondo. The article can be preserved but there must be major corrections done to it to remove the copyright violations. I'll try to reduce it to a stub and give appropriate references. Leoboudv (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Provided 7 genuine references and removed copyvio. Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Egyptzo is well known for this sort of thing, but the subject matter is real enough. I also trust Leoboudv to come up with real citations & re-write what is legitimate. Captmondo (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was rewritten and bears no resemblance to the copied text now. – Alensha ^talk 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the changes made to the article. Please someone that knows how to do the crossline thing on my earlier input. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominators concerns have been addressed so there is now no reason to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm happy now. Impressed even that Leoboudv could salvage it! Thanks. Do I need to do something now? --Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WowWee[edit]

Unreferenced article that would need some serious work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards - it currently reads more like an advert. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep article definitely needs work and some of it reads like an advertisement (particularly recent stuff about the buyout) but, it does seem to meet notability requirements and is covered alot on what seem to be tech and business sites. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable company that certainly merits an article on Wikipedia - it has been heavily covered in the press and other reliable sources. Admittedly, the article needs a lot of work, but AfD isn't for cleanup. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if there are so many reliable sources about this allegedly notable company, why has the article not had a single reference added in the four years that it has existed? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you're right, it should have been fixed. In fact, I'd been looking for that article before, and was disappointed by how little was there. Sorry for being a bit short. I'll see if I can improve the article tonight by adding some references and stuff, and hopefully that will help. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I've rewritten the article to remove copyvio (which there was a lot of) and to add references in order to establish notability. It is just a start, but it is the best I can do tonight, and I hope that it is, at least, a well referenced start. :) The best of the sources available online was one of the NYT articles. - Bilby (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure: G7: author has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Stars Magazine[edit]

non-notable porn magazine - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Strong delete. There's nothing to indicate that its notable at all. It was also speedily deleted three times before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE" This wikipedia entree is informative and their is plenty of info on the net to back up all the entree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Delete As per the first comment. And if anything, the above comment just makes my delete stronger. Noble Story (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-notable spam article. Lots of "informative" articles get deleted on a regular basis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Remove I have been a fan of this magazine for years. I don't see the problem? I was going to add to the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let me just say welcome to Davidfromtheburg. It's nice to see that new users can find AfD so easily and enter into discussions. I'd like to suggest you have a look at some of the policies and criteria we will be discussing in this debate so that you can help to improve not only this article but, the project as a whole. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I dont see what all the hub bub is about? Its just like everything else on wikipedi. Its fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrybabyfla (talk • contribs) — Sherrbabyfla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, another user whose only edit is on this discussion...--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am emailing the creator and posting a message to his talk page about meatpuppetry. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I can see that Cobaltbluetony and cyberghostface have team up to delete this article. Good job guys. I hope Wikipedia does better than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, you only get one "vote" here. Second, I opened this up to the public here as you requested and you initiated meatpuppetry by inviting Sherrbabyfla and Davidfromtheburg. They are not users who are familiar with our guidelines and policies, and cannot be expected to immediately understand the purpose of the project here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability... no sources... no way we should keep it! As an aside to some of the comments above - this isn't a vote, we're trying to achieve consensus. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any use for this article, bad references. Dwilso 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, spam, etc.Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its amazing that this article is getting so much attention compared to everything else today. Cobaltblueltony has gotten his friends together to comment and to delete a legitimate article for wikipedia. What make this article different than any thing else? I hope this is not the way Wikipedia is ran - by dictators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.238.163 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 76.110.238.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB, no sources. I give it zero stars. Jim Miller (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JimMillerJr. Epically fails WP:WEB and is totally unsourced. ~ mazca ^talk 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. I found one, at best two, WP:RS mentions. Just enough to verify that they are a real website. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Baxter and an anon between them seem to have just deleted the entire content of the article, including the Afd notice. I restored the text and the notice. I have no comment on the article, but that's not the way to "discuss" it. DGG (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete By being the primary author of the information Baxter blanking the page means that it meets criteria for speedy deletion. Or that is my understanding. I don't know how to cross out my earlier comments so if someone would be kind enough to do it for me that would be great. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that doesn't apply. CSD:G7 (Author requests deletion) only applies if "the page's only substantial content was added by its author" which isn't the case. Looking at the history of the page it appears that CobaltBlueTony started the page, but 76.110.238.163 and Baxter789 have both contributed as well. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Cobalt didn't create the page. The page had been blocked to prevent recreation, and the original author told him to bring it back so the public could decide.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - exactly the reason I made my comment. As I don't have access to admin tools I wasn't able to verify but, I understood that CobaltBlueTony had brought it "back at the author's request". If Baxter789 or the IP isn't the original author than my apologies are extended. Otherwise, I think it still would meet the criteria I stated, especially when you note that Baxter789 created his userpage with the article in question as shown here [10]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a possible Merge in order. (that's for the talkpages - don't need afd for that) Either way, no advocates for deletion presently. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FlyTech Dragonfly[edit]

Article is more like an advert than a serious encyclopedia article -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are links to two reviews (I question the reliability of one, but the other is from The New York Times). I've found three reviews on tech sites, a (somewhat brief) review in Time, and an article in Popular Mechanics, all of which are specifically about this product. (I'm a tad iffy about depth of coverage, but how much do you expect? It's a toy.) That said, this article desperately needs a major rewrite. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge May I suggest we be bold on this and all the other WowWee related articles up for deletion. Let's get Bold together and merge them into one non-spammy article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Jasynnash2, fix JediLofty's justified criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. There are plenty of great cites in the article. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, interesting, mentioned in significant press. --Oldak Quill 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 non-notable; pre-high schools are not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebrook Middle School[edit]

Completely unnotable middle school, even if all the silliness is removed from this joke article created by a vandalism only account. Collectonian (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've added a speedy tag, this page is mostly nonsense and non-notability. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McIntyre (Coronation Street)[edit]

Extremely minor child character from the UK soap Coronation Street who appeared in the show for two weeks in 2006, participating in no major storylines whatsoever, and has never re-appeared. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough information to keep.DGG (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom says it all. Character is obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Warden Can Suck It[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: no substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS and even the non-reliable sources are few. Maybe even a speedy delete here. --Pmedema (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing verification. No real suggestion of notablity either Bfigura ^(talk) 23:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS and even non-reliable sources are nonexistent. Think a speedy delete is in order. --WENCESLAV (talk) 1:23, 02 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brooke Hogan. --jonny-m t 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Hogan Demo CD[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC: demos are generally not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooke Hogan. Not notable enough for own article.Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brooke Hogan. Not enough notability to stay in separate article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an album purchasable by the general public and for internal label consideration only. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is an unreleased demo. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brooke Hogan - unreleased demo by someone most known for her father and their participation in a reality television program. B.Wind (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brooke Hogan. Next to no chance of finding suitable sources. Redirects are cheap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rammstein discography. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein (album)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: demos are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main band article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rammstein discography Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rammstein as non-charting demo albums don't reach the bar of WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (non-admin closure). Article was speedily deleted per CSD A7 by Aleta because it didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. WilliamH (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire (Band)[edit]

notability is in doubt Appraiser (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Diaspora of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Subject is of questionable notability and article is written like an advert. Has been tagged as such for almost three months. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to demonstrate notability. Article creator is an SPA; likely trying to promote the group. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WVQZ[edit]

The result was Delete (non-admin closure), unanimous delete based on lack of evidence of existence and suspected hoax. Rtphokie (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too keen on non-admins closing discussions as delete (see WP:DELPRO#NAC), but I endorse the call here. --jonny-m t 05:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable radio station. Is written like an ad at times (its written in the first person). Obvious WP:COI at hand here as well, as the main contributer is "Hot103" which is also the name of the company. Its only source so far is their MySpace. Speedy was declined, and the creator removed the PROD, so I'm nominating it here. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I changed the first-person usage to third-person. I would normally say that this is an automatic keep because all licenced radio and television stations that originate their own programming are notable, but the station isn't listed at the Federal Communications Commission database or in some other databases of radio stations, perhaps because it only started broadcasting earlier this month. So there's a chance that this is a hoax. If the station's existence can be verified, though, I will change my !vote to keep. --Eastmain (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For a hoax, it's pretty elaborate. However, the database indicates that there is no 105.3 FM broadcasting in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area. I guess the "15 watts" should have been a clue. True, as a general rule, FCC-licensed radio stations are considered to be inherently notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. But as others have pointed out, this isn't an FCC-licensed radio station. Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Eastmain- FCC licensed stations are inherently notable, but this one isn't showing up in an FCC FM query, making me think it's a hoax. The station's myspace points out that the call letters changed slightly with a station move (notice in the article the lead and article title don't match), but neither the old or new callsign shows up as licensed. As the nom pointed out, pretty blatantly created by someone looking to promote this. I'd say keep if the station's existence can be confirmed, but this looks like a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice It is possible that that the FCC has not updated their db (it can take a bit) but I can't find any record of the company, station, anything related to this other than a photobucket account with logos and stuff. Methinks it is a hoax spryde | talk 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You would also think that a new radio station would be significant enough to receive some coverage, any coverage, in the local press. This station is allegedly based in the same county as Greensboro, and the Greensboro News-Record has no record of this station [11]. RGTraynor 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a hoax to me. No FCC record for this callsign, low power or otherwise. Website is a "make your own website online" which is a bit suspect as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for a period of ten days in order to give the FCC and/or Radio-Locator databases time to be updated. As an LPFM, there may be a delay in adding these call letters to the databases. I would say that if a search of both databases on 5/9 does not show these call letters, then delete. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason to wait beyond the normal AFD period. The original author has been blocked indefinitely based on creation of this article. All signs point to this being a hoax.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold~~ after lots of cleanup, schedule removal, logo addition, and the usual polish I'm not convinced that this is a real radio station. (Protests that "we're a real radio station!" on their MySpace page, notwithstanding.) I can find no record of WVZQ or WVQZ, the station history laid out on the MySpace page makes no sense, and I'm leaning towards "hoax" but am willing to let it ride out a few days to see if the FCC does add it as an LPFM (but I'm not betting on it). Per InDeBiz1, if it's not there by May 9 then delete as hoax. - Dravecky (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax, after more research appears not to exist as a licensed station. - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One hoaxy thing I noticed earlier is that they supposedly moved dial positions, changing their call letters in the process, but the old letters don't register either. Is it really plausible that the station moved when it was so new that the FCC had yet to update the database? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI From the maintainer of that database:

Each day, at about 6 AM.  A change in CDBS shows up the next day.

Dale Bickel  [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Dale Bickel
Subject: FCC DB question

How often is the database available at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html updated?  How long would it take
for a newly licensed station or callsign change to show up there?

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

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

The result was delete because there is nothing to merge. As noted by Kransky, Vanuatu does not appear to have any actual trade missions. Feel free to install a redirect under this title, though. Sandstein (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trade missions of Vanuatu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Trade missions of Vanuatu (2nd nomination)

article content forks Diplomatic missions of Vanuatu. Vanuatu has no overseas trade missions, the Canberra link goes to an irrelevant page. Deletion request was previously incorrectly listed. Kransky (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not sure that a trade mission would fit under the title "Diplomatic missions", but both are very short, and should be combined, possibly under a new name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Foreign relations of Vanuatu. There's already a discussion up to merge "Diplomatic missions" into "Foreign relations." RGTraynor 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There we go. I didn't catch that because there's no mergeto on the diplomatic relations article; I'll add one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Vanuatu Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For those wanting to keep or merge the contents of this article, please realise Vanuatu has NO trade missions abroad. None. Zip. Nada. The link to the sole "trade mission" is actually an advertisement for Australian building and construction companies to attend a three day trade show in 2007 in Vanuatu. Also note that with the 188 Diplomatic Missions by Country articles commerical offices and honorary diplomatic missions are not included. Kransky (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vanuatu doesn't have any diplomatic missions or offices abroad, no need to merge something that doesn't exist. Aquintero (talk) 14:30, 1 May, 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara ❤Love 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi A4 S Line[edit]

DELETE - Not Notable - The "S line" is merely a trim level, and is available on nearly all Audi cars in their range. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure -- Teutonic Tamer 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audi A4 as a valid search term. I'd agree that it's not notable enough for any separate article. Erechtheus (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It may be a copyvio of one of the many auto sites out there; either way, it's not individually notable but it is a valid search term, so redirect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoia diangelo[edit]

Previously deleted through A7, but I want to run this though AfD. My opinion is still delete: it doesn't look like the subject passes WP:BIO and the references are a bit ropey. Marasmusine (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Di Angelo is a notable actress in Australia and New Zealand and is currently filming Destiny in Love with Peter Hyams. Once the film is released I have no doubt her popularity and fan base will increase in America...why not start it now? User:ForActing2 30 April 2008

WP:SCRABBLE neatly explains why. Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are ropey indeed. Of seven "references" provided, two are unverifiable personal communications, two seem to be about her father's career and merely mention her in passing, one is from YouTube, one is concerned with her high-school wrestling abilities, and the statements of her modeling/acting agency don't seem to me to be reliable sources. Perhaps this young individual will be more notable at a later stage of her career. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Should the article be kept, it needs to be renamed per WP:NAME. Also, at least three other articles about the same subject (as "Sequoia Di Angelo") have been speedily deleted on 30 April 2008. B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally speedied this a couple of times due to what I perceived as a lack of assertion of any notability, but even if that's debatable I think it's clear as nom says that this fails WP:BIO. There really are no sources, and just to give some indication the subject's IMDB entry is simply a resume that shows no roles which are even remotely notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Smells promotional. Recreate if independent secondary sources are found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Ocean[edit]

This ~~unknown~~ unsigned band fails WP:MUSIC. The only claim that even arguably rises to the level of assertion of notability (a tour) is not supported by any reliable source. The band isn't even signed. Erechtheus (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable band. Sources are band's personal pages and band is not signed with a label. I'm hard-pressed to see how this meets WP:MUSIC. Tnxman307 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems notable to me. I think it fairly WP:POV to say that the band is unknown. WP:Music says "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." I think been on several radio stations and magazines is classed as "subject of a broadcast by a media network" therefore is Notable according to wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that they would be notable if they were in a magazine, or on several radio stations. However, the article's sources simply go to their personal website or myspace page. Is there a link to the magazine article? Tnxman307 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here http://www2.kerrang.com/2008/02/kerrang_magazine_27022008.html (It is reference number 3 on the article btw) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That tells us absolutely nothing about the depth of any coverage they may have received, much less serves as any sort of citation appropriate of a reliable source. Erechtheus (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like they're on their way to notability but not quite there yet. If it can be established that they were in rotation on BBC1 rather than just the occasional spin, or if tour coverage can be found, I would mostly likely change my mind. Certainly calling them "unknown" is a bit over the top; also, being signed is not a pre-requisite for inclusion on Wikipedia. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree. I'm almost certain I meant to write "unsigned", not "unknown". My mistake. Erechtheus (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fairly classic non-notable-band case to me. Although they have their own website (not just a MySpace), the two reasons I see for lack of notability per WP:MUSIC is that they haven't received much third-party media coverage from notable/reliable sources, as well as not being signed to any record label. A pretty extensive Google search doesn't prove otherwise, either. After the band gets some more media coverage, I wouldn't be opposed to recreation; but at this point they're simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. --JamieS93 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Since they did tour with a notable band, i would say keep.Guitardude3600 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 by DGG after its main contributor blanked the page in response to the AfD nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. DeVore[edit]

This is a biography that does not indicate using verifiable sources any notability for the subject. Worse, it is apparently written by the subject's wife. Speedy declined by user who chose not to offer any helpful rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable musician bio. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Original research (Synthesis of published material). This has been pointed several times in the discussion and never contested (it was claimed that the individual events are notable but that is not the point as articles about them exist). I also note that as much as I can get from the title and date of *all* of the references and bibliography cited, they are about each individual event not about the whole set of events. - Nabla (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing in Croatia[edit]

Anti-Croat sentiment

Delete-Article is full of POV statements against Croatia and Croats which are writen without any sources. Even few sources which are given we can't trust. For example I will use census numbers given in this articles how Croats has created with Ethnic cleansing enhnicly pure Croatia in which 95 % of population are Croats. Only problem with this data is that in Croatia there is 89.9 % of Croats which can be seen in article Croatia and CIA country page. Difference between numbers in this article and older history is much greater. It is possible that article has been edited by puppet of banned user:Velebit which can be see from history of his edits IP 217.57.46.126 and user Velebit other puppet user:NovaNova or his suspected banned puppet user:Stagalj. Creation of this article has not been noticed earlier because if has been created with only edit of SPA account.--Rjecina (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom made an edit to this before nominating it; looks pretty interesting: [12] Particularly, toward the bottom, content was removed, and more than one reference. That is way, way too many {{fact}} and {{dubious}} tags BTW; when there are that many concerns, use an article-wide tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous articles based around ethnic cleansing and atrocities on Wikipedia. Despite nom's assertions, the article gives numerous sources (although lacking inline citations). That the nom - a native Croatian, I note, according to the talk page - does not like the sources is plain, but that does not constitutes a valid deletion ground, and few editors, for example, would deny that an official United Nations report meets reliable source standards. Finally, nom fails to give any valid deletion ground; being "anti-Croat" is not found in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. RGTraynor 13:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - have reverted to version prior to noms changes. The article does seem to be very POV and needs work towards neutrality. I'll have a go in a minute but, am in no way an expert. In the meantime I think it meets the notability requirements and probably has more than suffient 3rd party sources.Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I've tried to compare a number of earlier versions and tried making it more neutral. I've compared with Ethnic Cleansing and with Yugoslav wars. I'd like to change my weak keep above to Merge relevant factual information can be placed in the above two articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment 1 thing is to not like sources other thing is if sources are real and NPOV. Nobody will question ethnic cleansing in WWII but number of milion is typical Serbian fundamentalism because only Serbian right extremist accept this number. On other side USHMM is claiming between 330,000 and 390,000 victims Jasenovac in today Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.
- Then there is claim about ethnic cleansing in 1991-95 and how all Serbs are expelled. Creator of this article know very good that this is false because rebel government of Croatian Serbs has given order to all population to leave Croatia and go to Bosnian or Serbian exile ( [13] and Human Right Watch)
- In article is writen how Dalmatia there has been 400,000 Italians and half of the rest are Serbs and the rest were Catholic Dalmatians. Small check with reality ! In article Kingdom of Dalmatia we are having Austrian census from 1880 and data are:Croats 371,655 ,Serbs 78,714 and Italians 27,305 so number of 400,000 Italians then in past or future of this data is not possible. I can write few pages about false data in this article but there is no point. Because of this false data article need to be deleted. For all my tags there has been reasons (false data or POV statements)--Rjecina (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, we have here an article of very bad quality used primarily as a vent for the nationalism of radical Serb and Italian users. The article mentions 3 instances of "ethnic cleansing" while using the term extremely loosely. These are: the foibe massacres, Operation Storm, and WW2 Nazi genocide that took place in occupied Yugoslavia. What's the problem?

1) The foibe massacres were simply not ethnic cleansing. They were retribution against fascists, not Italians or people of any other particular ethnicity. To say they were organized by anyone for the removal of Italians from Istria is pure speculation on the part of the more interested users. Also, one may argue that Croatia did not exist at the time at all, being still an integral part of occupied Yugoslavia.

One would also do well to remember that a LOT more fascist Croats were massacred not far away (see Bleiburg massacre), which says something about the "ethnic criteria" the Partisans used. Also, the majority of the Italians left Istria 5 years (or later) after the foibe massacres, while the numbers here are too small to constitute ethnic cleaning on their own.

2) Operation Storm. There is currently a careful discussion taking place on Talk:Serbs of Croatia that will determine first the reliability of sources on this matter, and then the matter itself (using mostly UN sources). One can read about this complicated and controversial matter there. The unfortunate flight of the Serbs took place without any explicite coercion by the Croat forces, and that fear itself was enough to start evacuation. Croats were unable to cross the line due to the NATO assistance they received, no matter what they may or may not have desired. In short, there is no consensus in the international community that this was ethnic cleansing, certainly no corroboration can be found in reliable, UN sources.

3) WW2. Another mess in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was under Nazi occupation at the time and the Germans, Italians, and their local collaborators killed a large number of Jews, Serbs, Roma, and communist or anti-fascist Croats on its territory (Croatia did not exist at the time). The article, however, asserts that the Nazi massacres here, and, by extension, everywhere else in Europe, were ethnic cleansing.

All in all, far from trying to downplay the truly horrific tragedies of this area, it is highly controversial and over-simplifying to simply label them all "ethnic cleansing" and write an article about it. Especially when the article appears to try and depict them all as somehow "linked" to Croatia as a nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that historians would be interested to hear your assertion that Croatia did not exist in WWII. RGTraynor 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the nom asked for the above user's participation, which isn't a problem necessarily, but I think the comment shows that this is an IDONTLIKEIT nomination: [14] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And decidedly a WP:CANVASS violation to boot, and the nom admitted as much; the "gosh, we need a native Dalmatian who can speak English well in on this" notion is choice. This skirts closely to a bad faith nomination. RGTraynor 13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have called DIREKTOR but on other side I am not happy why my tags has been deleted. This tags has showed problems with article. Right question is if this problem can be solved. During March 2008 there has been discussion if POV problems in other article can be solved. Decision has been that problem will never been solved and article is deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars (2nd nomination). I do not understand why this article is different and can somebody please restore my tags so that everybody see what are problems with this article ?--Rjecina (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "so-called" (as it is referred to officially in Croatia) Independent State of Croatia is not "Croatia", despite its name. It is an unrecognized Nazi puppet state, created during wartime on occupied Yugoslav territory and did not de jure exist. Ethnic cleansing is a legal violation, all ISC war criminals were tried by Yugoslavia for (high) treason.

As for the canvassing, please don't discuss it here. Let's talk about the article instead, and let's stay civil. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another one of those loads of dumpy flaming articles dedicated and made in the sole purpose of attack on one ethnic group or nation, instead of rather to the suffering one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are a lot more articles like this trying to concentrate in one place all POV material about one dispute or another. The fact that it will >zero< traffic is besides the point, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I missed the part where the article was really called Ethnic cleansing by Croats. I see nothing wrong with sourced additions of other incidents. As far as anything else goes, the proper handling of an article in which reliable sources are themselves disputed is by neutrality tags, which are on. Inline disputes of every fact, however properly sourced, that some POV-pushers doesn't like are improper. RGTraynor 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't dedicated to assault on Croats as an ethnic group (though indirectly is, since the Republic of Croatian is the Croats' nation-state), but an attack-page on Croatia.

I might be willing to reconsider if any such similar page is presented, so that I can assume, based on precedent law, that this is not an exception. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup as necessary. This is a notable subject and reliable sources have written about it. Therefore, there should be a Wikipedia article of this title. The actions of indivudual editors, and the un/suitability of various sections of the article as it stands now, do not change that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I'm not some Croat nationalist freak (I'm not trying to "preserve the honor of my state"), but objectively speaking all three "ethnic cleansing" topics of this article are seriously disputed and controversial (and I don't mean the perpetrators). The foibe massacres, Operation Storm, and the holocaust in Yugoslavia are clearly not proven or widely accepted to fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. We all know that "polling is not a substitute for discussion", and I move that these ethnic cleansing claims be first reliably confirmed before this article can be allowed to pass.
- The most obvious example, of course, are the foibes. These events are so unclear today, that Partisan uniforms have also been found on the bodies in there. The most important problems with implying that this was ethnic cleansing are: 1) the fact that the killings of that period were ideologically, not ethnically motivated, with Croats getting massacred as well. 2) the fact that the majority of Italians actually left the area years later. 3) the fact that there is no proof that the foibe massacres and the Italian exodus from the area are linked at all.
- As for Operation 'Storm', the UN was on the ground there. The minute someone gets me a UN source that clearly states "Operation 'Storm' was ethnic cleansing", I'll concede this point. Otherwise, I suggest we do not lightly brand it as anything without real proof.
- WW2. We all know about the holocaust, was the holocaust ethnic cleansing? A large number of Croats suffered alongside Jews, Serbs, and Roma in Jasenovac and elsewhere. We're talking about German eugenics here, that applied in this case to the Serbs as well as "inferior" Slavs (Croats were, quite stupidly, not considered Slavs by the Axis).--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each of the (widely divergent) events treated here is already treated better elsewhere. Weaving them into a common story, implying that ethnic cleansing has been a consistent pattern in Croatia, is just the kind of POV-driven OR we don't need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if every sentence in this article was properly sourced and referenced, it is still an assortment of very loosely associated events, hand picked by the authors of the article and grouped together to misrepresent some sort of a non-existent common bond. If an article like this is allowed to stay, retaliatory articles (possibly titled Ethnic cleansing by Serbs, Ethnic cleansing by Bosniaks, Ethnic cleansing by Albanians) are sure to appear. The article contributes little new information but none of it valuable to Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article based on stereotypes (of a certain group of people), uncomplete, based on false and wrong data. Lack of knowledge in matter. Bad intention ("Croatia, as it is today, consisted of several regions with very different history...Dalmatia had a distinct population"). Typical anti-Croat writing. Dismembering of Croatia, and then naming the population (in dismembered parts) with various names (all but Croat name), in order to make Croatia smaller, and to deny the existence of Croats. Bad intention could also be seen in the fact, that intention of the author of this article was to throw the mud on Croats: how come that the author hasn't wrote a single word about ethnical cleansing (directly by state or mercenaries to do the dirty work; also, ethnical cleansing was committed in a rough and in a "fine" way), in which Croat population was eliminated (killed or forced to leave)? Not a single word about eliminations of Croats because of greaterserbianism, Italian irredentism, Ottoman occupation? Not a single word about that how the Croat population was eliminated from the areas in Croatia that were later used (by greaterserbian forces) as a jumpboard for the attempt of conquering of whole Croatia? Obviously, author has filtered the information. And the data, that remained, he based on mythological claims. Serious topic and article that deal with that cannot be based on propagandist sources. Kubura (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Important. The starter of this article is user Special:Contributions/MikioIo. The starting edit [15] is a scholar example of POV writing and propagandism. Obsessive anti-Croat writing. Now, compare his edits with this author Special:Contributions/Mikiolo (there was Mikio-capital I-o, and here is Mikio-small letter l-o). Accidental similarity? If we have the case of same user (I believe we do, because he had the same area of interest - "Ethnical cleansing in Croatia", same anti-Croat attitude and lack of knowledge [16]), we have to know that that author ignored the voting results on the talkpage, as well as the sources from the article (and redirected according to his wish). See the comments on his contributions, while he was redirecting. Also, article with similar name existed and was deleted [17] . "Defender" was - Mikiolo. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnical cleansing in Croatia. I don't know (I can't see that) who started the article, but we have obvious content forking. Kubura (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll point out that the deleted article above was done so because of the horrible misspelling of the title. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; namely to present the different instances of population displacement & ethnic cleansing in Croatia as a consistent pattern by means of which the Croatian state was created. Most content is already present in more suitable articles. And I too dread the appearance of an Ethnic cleansing in [country] series. - Ev (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must contain all the truth, not only that of the Croats who obviously want to erase all the memory of the ethnic cleansing in their country. But I believe the article will be deleted because only a few wikipedians dare to fight (for the real truth and impartiality) a large group of Croats who vote for deletion.Unfortunately this is one of the limits of Wikipedia.--Pannonicus (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we must Fight For The Truth! mustn't we? or the eevil Croat conspiracy will get us all! I suggest you use arguments, not nationalist "catchphrases", all the while keeping in mind who actually invented ethnic cleansing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pannonicus, please read the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, an official Wikipedia policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Country's Fucked[edit]

This seems to be made up. Could not find sources. E.g. urban dictionary mentions the phrase, but does not explain the connection to Australia. (Was prodded as unsourced.) The very model of a minor general (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant POV pushing. Most of the sources listed are WP links. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand new article, but there's nothing that can be made of it that I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Article's Fucked: (Alright, I probably should have resisted the temptation.) No reliable sources, a mighty 36 hits on the Australian Google [18], and all of them blog posts, with few of them actually referring to Australia. RGTraynor 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A soapbox POV essay. No reliable sources (four Wikipedia articles, an entry in UrbanDictionary and Flickr. Those aren't reliable sources) and mostly original research (then again, no reliable sources and the inclusion of OR usually go hand-in-hand). In any case it has no place on Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Doc Strange. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be making the same arguments above. No need to repeat myself. --Pmedema (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it should serve as an example of the smallest possible Google search return for a plausible string ever seen. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV essay with no reliable sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a forum for personal agenda and opinion. Dwilso 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could apply to just about any country. Qworty (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a variety of reasons, including the fact that this is WP:OR, pushes a political POV, and probably isn't that notable a slogan anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Generally the case when the most reliable source presented is urban dictionary. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with attitude - no need for that sort of stuff here perhaps should have been speedy Satu Suro 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark H. Washburn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark H. Washburn (2nd nomination)

It seems pretty obvious that this was created as an autobiography. Most of the so-called "awards" are awarded to the newspaper. There are absolutely no google hits other than this article. There are no articles that link to this page. Ncpressman, who created this article, has not contributed to nor created any other articles. The username itself seems to indicate a journalist (pressman) from North Carolina (NC)...same as Mark H. Washburn. If anybody thinks this article should be kept, first click on a few of the "award" links and tell me how many of the "award winners" from these lists should have an article. RobDe68 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, newspaper reporter of no apparent notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Where are the reliable sources about the subject? Beyond that, this article is jammed with puffery, quite aside from being written in a clumsy, repetitive style that doesn't suggest professional journalism to me. So Washburn traveled to Iraq in 2005 with a National Guard unit ... just like thousands of other reporters. So Washburn was on the staff of the Miami Herald when the paper won a Pulitzer ... so were the composition room techs and the cafeteria cashier. RGTraynor 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, the Prize was for Public Service in helping the area cope with Hurricane Andrew, and he was the State editor at the time, so he's probably significantly responsible. DGG (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err ... do you know that? Or are you just presuming that? RGTraynor 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Wizardman 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coyne[edit]

Footballers who never played in a fully professional league. No, Dumbarton is not in a professional league. Note that some of these were squad members of notable clubs once, but never actually played. Punkmorten (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as they fail notability at WP:Bio#Athletes --Jimbo^[online] 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom & Jimbo. Giant Snowman 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sinclair (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Footballer has never played in tier 1 or 2 of Scottish league football, so inevitably fails WP:BIO. Article was kept before, but not on valid grounds. Punkmorten (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per this article from the Scotsman there are only three full-time professional teams in Scottish Div 2 (out of a total of ten), ergo this player has not played in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportscruft; subject has never played in a professional league. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as player fails notability at WP:Bio#Athletes --Jimbo^[online] 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not sufficiently notable.--Berig (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Moosmayer[edit]

Not a notable footballer. Punkmorten (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not played in a fully-pro league, so fails notability. Giant Snowman 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator fails WP:BIO and everything else. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Trouten[edit]

More players who have never actually played in tier 1 or 2 of Scottish league football, thus failing WP:BIO by a good margin. Punkmorten (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as the fail notability at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo^[online] 12:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the failure of WP:BIO#Athletes and for general notability issues. Razor flame 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence supplied to state whether Andreassen is or is not professional, which would effectively have determined the closure of this AFD. If any ever turns up this can be revisited. Neıl ☎ 09:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Arne Andreassen[edit]

Football leagues below tier 1 in Norway are not fully professional, and this player has only played in these not-fully-professional leagues. Punkmorten (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought the Adeccoligaen was fully professional? Maybe a few of the promoted clubs are semi-pro, but then, so is K.S.V. Roeselare. Now if I were to nominate someone who spent his entire career with Germinal Beerschot for deletion based on the grounds that it didn't play in a fully-professional league, it would be rightfully dismissed as a frivolous AfD. Nonetheless, it raises a contradiction that needs to be discussed. When Barnet F.C. were first promoted to the Football League half their squad was part-time. Did that make England's fourth tier no longer notable for players? I think the Adeccoligaen gets enough coverage and is of a high enough standard to be deemed notable. --Balerion (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd be surprised if more than 2/3 the clubs are fully professional. Hence, the analogy doesn't really hold water. Punkmorten (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a way to confirm this? I know that literally half the Adeccoligaen employs American players who are fully professional. --Balerion (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That one or two players in a squad are professional, doesn't mean that the whole club is, even less so the whole league.. Punkmorten (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I realize that, but do we actually know most of these clubs are semi-pro or are we just operating on your hunch? --Balerion (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to FK Haugesund. Not enough material for own article. Not sufficiently notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in Scientology[edit]

The goal of Jesus in Scientology is to give Christians reasons to hate Scientology. The "article" is clearly NPOV in it's very nature.

The "article" is a soapbox for those who oppose Scientology. WP:SOAP

This "article" is unencyclopedic. It is a series of quotes from Scientology possibly taken out of context. It doesn't give insight to the subject since it contains no information about how Scientologists feel about Jesus. It is simply inflammatory.

Ultimately, this type of article lowers the repute of Wikipedia from an online encyclopedia to a collection of smear blogs. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scientology has a long, strong arm when it comes to silencing non-positive material, so it doesn't surprise me to see this at AfD. That said, there's nothing within this article that isn't verifiable by a quick read of Hubbard's earlier works and lectures. Lots of sources of this type can be used as sources in these. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; Scientology's beliefs about Jesus would qualify as notable. I disagree with Colonel Warden's suggestion that it be merged to an article about Jesus. Although merging may be appropriate, it would be better to merge this with another Scientology article. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Agree with Nominator, however, if the article is kept, it should me merged with Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth, inasmuch as much of this appears to be myth.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are there and I think it more than justifies it's existance as an independent page and shouldn't be merged. Alberon (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problems listed in the nomination can be fixed without the article being deleted. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This should go into the existing Scientology article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article is well-sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, even if the one subsection regarding the Operating Thetan material is not taken into consideration. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from Keep to Strong Keep, per some cogent points made by John Carter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article contains a variety of clearly encyclopedic material. Suggest that the article be kept first. Discussion of where which material could be merged to should take place elsewhere and probably later. I can see material from this article being merged into one or more articles, or being allowed to stand on its own. Jesus in Islam is a similar article about the views of one religion about a leading figure in another religion. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, Scientology does not say anything about Jesus. This is not analogous to "Jesus in Islam". What we have here are irrelevant snippets where LRH mentions Jesus in passing in some lecture or other. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Hubbard specifically says that Jesus and the other vestiges of Christianity are part of the film programs used to give a false reality. The context is quite clear. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that what Hubbard said is not formal Scientology doctrine, which might be true. In any event, the statements of one founder of a religion about another founder of an earlier religion are significant and seemingly to some degree notable. We just got through a discussion elsewhere about whether the article on Krishna should mention how the subject is viewed in other belief systems. Indicating what religions or religious leaders think of each other, positive and negative, is if verifiable useful and encyclopedic information. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI can't see any good reason to delete it other than it makes someone unhappy, which isn't good enough.Doug Weller (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Strong WP:OR flavor to this article. Inherently WP:POV with cherry-picked snippets from Hubbard that do not in any way represent "Jesus in Scientology". If anything this article is L. Ron Hubbard on Jesus. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So improve it:) Merkin's mum 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this article is L. Ron Hubbard on Jesus. So then are you saying that the current administration has squirreled LRH tech? Interesting. Z00r (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep even if as Justallofthem says (I wouldn't necessarily agree with him) the article doesn't show many Sci's notable perspectives on Jesus, that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. Merkin's mum 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem decent, the topic seems notable, and if you see problems with specific parts of it then correct the mistakes and improve the article. It is not worthy of deletion, in my opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article, although I don't subscribe to its present state.--Berig (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears valid, and content (whether disputed or not) appears encyclopaedic. If nominator has NPOV concerns they should be addressed by improving the page. If page is mis-named, then get consensus for renaming it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing here that cannot be fixed. {{sofixit}}. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject, encyclopaedic article. What's to delete? X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator attributed a comment taken from WikiScanner and this source to me. I'm not sure why he did so, but I quickly reverted it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the history and it got added when you voted. Sorry for the confusion. I assume it is some sort of glitch and I have removed it completely. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was what happened when I voted. This was when you added that extra bit in the nomination. It didn't happen when I voted, but you didn't add it, either, apparently. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happen when you voted. Your citation was when DragonFire1024 voted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However I see now that I should have checked with you first, I do apologize. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jesus in Islam and plenty of reliable sources. --Explodicle (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Problems with the article (such as whether it complies with NPOV) can be fixed, and arguments based on such issues are at best transient in nature. More constant are questions of subject notability and the availability of reliable sources. Since Scientology has presented itself as compatible with Christianity, this is a likely area of research for anyone wishing to learn more, and although some of the sources are clearly partisan, others seem to be scholarly works and quite reliable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Escape Orbit. Z00r (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Cartner DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You all seem to miss the point;

Of course the article is well sourced. You can always find some "expert" willing to misrepresent Scientology or any other religion. The same as the tobacco companies found experts willing to say tobacco is safe, Nazis found experts to say that Jews were a threat to the gene pool and slavers found experts to says blacks were inferior to whites. You wouldn't publish this information without ensuring it is understood in context. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we strive to maintain a neutral point of view. By doing this, it prevents Wikipedia from taking one position or the other by including all relevant information, both in favor of a group and against it. By doing anything else, we risk applying UNDUE weight to one argument or the other, which we, as editors rather than experts, are not able to do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the subject of religion people are willing to believe all sorts of strange things. Sure Christians believe God spoke as a burning bush and the Hare Krishnas believe God appeared as a blue man. But people outside of religions will believe strange things as well. In the middle ages it was believed that Jews used baby blood to make their bread. I went to see the Dali Lama and people were protesting him, claiming he practiced rituals involving human blood and human skulls. And, apparently, anyone is willing to believe that children brought up in a religious community are automatically abused. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a good look at what is going on in Texas with these plural marriage communities. Polygamy has been going on for thousands of years and practiced by various Mormon groups for almost a couple hundred years and there is no evidence they produce traumatized children or that their parents would allow their children to be abused. If there were, where are the thousands and thousands of traumatised adults resulting from these marriages. If you went into any American community and took all the children away from the parents, how many would you find had been sexually abused by adults? More or less then the FLDS community? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of odd religious beliefs. It is up to us to include them in the most neutral way possible. Ultimately, it is up to the reader, not the editors, to figure out what they want to think for themselves. Until there is court-verified, RS-published evidence to the contrary, the only thing that can be said about the recent polygamy raids is that there were accusations of child abuse. But that's an entirely separate issue here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of website incites these sorts of injustices. It is not a question of "is it sourced". It is a question of should we allow Wikipedia to be a soap box for hate groups. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that talk about how weird and "dangerous" Scientology is. I'm not saying delete them all. I'm saying this one goes too far. It shouldn't be merged or renamed, it should be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a soap box? Again, you have to think of maintaining a neutral point of view. Scientology's system of beliefs, Hubbard's lectures and writings on the space opera are all quite notable. To include only the bits and pieces that paint Scientology as a sustainable belief system compatible with other religions is inane. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a soap box for religious groups just as much as it is to not be a soap box for critics. The function of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. The safe route is to include anything and everything, preventing positive or negative undue weight and let the reader decide for themselves. Anything else is, essentially, varying degrees of censorship, undue weight, and POV-pushing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the point has been missed. It is a requirement that articles be as neutral as possible. The facts of the matter is that this is one of a series of articles on how Jesus is viewed by the various religions of the world. The article does state Scientology's claim that the allegations are rubbish, and if they comment more on the matter that should be added to the article. There is nothing wrong with stating claims by detractors as long as any reply by the religion in question is also added to balance the article.

If an article is unbalanced that is not a justification for deletion, but for working on it to restore neutrality. The claims have been made and there is nothing wrong about having a page on the subject. If you think the article is unbalanced, then edit it with counter-claims. But deletion is not waranted. It's sourced and it's notable. Alberon (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appears to be operating under a very clear failure to assume good faith regarding the people who have worked on this article. That is not good. None of us are necessarily in a position to be able to state what the thinking of others is. I suggest that he perhaps alter his tone regarding his opinions regarding the motivations of others in his future comments. If however he wishes to make such claims, there are other, better, places to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in Islam uses Islamic and Christian scholars as it's references. This article uses references like Mark Driscoll, who has implied that non-Christian cultures practice cannibalism, and Steven Fishman, who would have us believe that the Church of Scientology put assassination contracts out on people. The bulk of the other references are journalists and interviews. The only scholars are Christian Ministers who exhibit no neutrality. To delete these will just result in someone putting them back. The context of LRH's quotes are not clear. You can implant someone that "2+2=4", that doesn't make it false. Scientologists are not encourage to have an opinion one way or the other about God or Jesus. I believe these people post in good faith, I just don't think the article belongs in an encyclopedia. The result of this page will be to smear Scientology and it will never have any other result. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable and well referenced. If you want to contradict it, cite a reliable source to the contrary. Good luck with that, since the Church of Scientology tries to claim copyright on all of its documents and scriptures. Some topics are just so bad that it even the most neutral, logical, verifiable article will tend to make people dislike the subject, e.g., Hitler. NPOV does not require that we present everything in a light that will not induce dislike of the subject, e.g., Hitler. NPOV merely requires that we accurately present information from reliable sources on the subject, including all viewpoints that can be gotten from a decent number of reliable sources on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet software[edit]

Coatrack article for spam link. Contested prod. See also Animal software. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, along with vet software and veterinary software. I removed the spammy external link, and now there's simply no content. Yes, vertical market software exists for any number of niches, including veterinary practices, but there's nothing which distinguishes this particular vertical market from the thousands of others which can be imagined. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 album. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Before (Life Goes On)[edit]

Lacks any notability whatsoever. It is just a song from the album, nothing more. σмgнgσмg ^(talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to album. Simple procedure for non-notable (but, in this case, very good) album tracks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara ❤Love 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Heilman[edit]

Unencyclopaedic article about online movie critic. Includes such trivia as "He currently resides in an undisclosed location in New York with his dog Ginger". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - written slightly better than most vanity pages, but still appears to be a vanity page. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I re-edited the article, removing the cutesy references. Heilman is well-known in his field, but you wouldn't guess it from this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AfD withdrawn, results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandalorian ("Merge to Mandalorian") stand. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mandalorians[edit]

No citations to reliable sources; I doubt the existence of any secondary sources to give real-world of non-Fett characters (which have their own article). I appreciate the semi-virtue of a List of... over individual articles, but the subjects of this list are so non-notable I doubt their article (re)creation. --EEMIV (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandalorian there is an established consensus that this article should be merged into Mandalorian. Because such a merger will require drastic pruning we should expect such a merger to take time. I do not feel that enough time has passed for the deletion of this article. Taemyr (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases like this (where a previous merge consensus exists but no one's actually bothered to merge the article, just slapped merge tags on it and left it to rot), the best thing to do is to redirect the article and leave a note to editors of the target page that they can merge whatever content they want from the history of the source page. Same thing was done for Mandalorian language earlier (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandalorian language). Cheers, cab (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per cab; since the previous (fairly recent) consensus was to merge, it shouldn't be deleted outright. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect If consensus has already preferred a merge to deletion, than this is what should happen. The quality-merging-and-trimming rests with the people interested in keeping some of the info, so both a full merge or just a redirect is possible. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about the AfD (which, yeah, I started) because I didn't see the old AfD tag on the talk page. I've redirected the page to Mandalorian. --EEMIV (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect reverted. It's customary to wait more than 11 hours after starting an AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the previous AfD and trend here, that doesn't seem necessary. I'm withdrawing the AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who have appeared on Spicks and Specks[edit]

Do we really need a list of celebrities who have appeared on a game show? Seems trivial at best to me, fails notability, and I doubt it's significance could be attained through reliable sources. Wizardman 05:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Good article, but not encyclopedic. Dwilso 05:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dwilso. X Marx The Spot (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aimless - Shiftchange (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the show, whose title is an illustration of cultural differences in among English speakers. Can you imagine a television show in the U.S. with word "Spics" in the title? Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging a list of people who appeared on the show seems pointless to me. Any rationale for that? Wizardman 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spicks and Specks. Not particularly useful as a standalone list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic content. Merge if there are some notable people mentioned (if it can be slotted into the article). Five Years 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gynesis[edit]

Unnotable term. The book where the term is defined and used(Gynesis: Configurations of Woman and Modernity) may or may not be notable, but the term itself doesn't rate its own article. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment discussion listing fixed [19] cab (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another gynocentric neologism that fortunately will not catch on. JuJube (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as neologism. (The book might be appropriate for an article, however. ISBN 0801417686. If we had an article about the book, a redirection might be reasonable.)--The very model of a minor general (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though perhaps an article about theoretical reading of the feminine that disrupts the metanarratives of western culture ought to have a round on pages needing translation first. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This word was a lame clunky American academic attempt to invent a feminine version of jouissance. It never caught on/has never been popular even in the most obscure corner of academia. The French feminist concept of ecriture feminine, and Julia Kristeva's concept of the semiotic are similar, achieved notability, and are already described in the encyclopedia. No need whatsoever for this inelegant and totally unnotable term to have an article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophecy (novel)[edit]

This should actually be speedied not only as an advert, and not only as completely non-notable, but also as an entry with no discernible context whatsoever. I in fact tagged this one for a speedy, but another user removed the tag. Thus, we'll have to go through some time and effort by employing this more formal process. Qworty (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for failure to assert notability. Amazon has no listing for a book called "The Prophecy" (which amazes me; I'd've thought there'd be at least two dozen, probably all with similar plots to this one), and there are no useful search terms, not even the name of the author, the main character, or the publisher. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability or that this books exists at all. i couldn't find it on Amazon either. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without additional information - such as an author - there is no means of confirming that the book even exists. - Bilby (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if there were 100 books with this title we have no way to know which one it would be. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and unverifiable.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some information comes to light which might give us a chance of writing an encyclopaedic article. As it stands, there's nothing to be said on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I've also moved the disambiguation page here. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-22[edit]

Unknown film by unknown people. Impossible to verify beyond a MySpace page which indicates that this may be a student film. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the film is notable enough for wikipedia. Dwilso 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a student film, and even if not, severely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self production; might be a hoax. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google reveals nothing related to it, so it isn't notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with dab I'm leaving one at Talk:T-22/temp. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, good job! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I'm in favour of deleting the article first though: this will avoid the temptation for the original contributor to simply revert to his earlier spammish version. Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we just be bold like people say and replace with the dab? Also, why can't the proposed dab be at Talk:T-22 instead of creating a talk page for an article that doesn't exist (i.e. T-22/temp)Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, its a subpage of the non-existant talk page Talk:T-22, not the talk page for article T-22/temp... and this is how non-copyright-violation pages are created at WP:CV, which is why it sits at the subpage of the talk page. Articles aren't supposed to have subpages, so T-22/temp would usually be an illegal article. If you look at any talk archive page, the article tab is also redlinked. ( ie. Talk:xxx/Archive 1 has a redlink for xxx/Archive 1, even though "Archive 1" is a talk archive for "Talk:xxx", which is the talk page for article "xxx" ) 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that information on subpages and whatnot. I still think we need to be bold and do the replacement but, it's only my opinion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and then move the disambiguation page over, as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blackmarket kidney[edit]

OR essay. Nakon 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student essay, fry it, professor and students have evinced total disregard for policy, letting an article on urban Legends grow embarasses the project. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alas, this is not about the common urban legend.--Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is WP:notable, but covered by Organ transplants. The originator may wish to move some of the references there (but please format them correctly), in which case the tone of statements should be made much more neutral and the original research removed. Trade in organs of dubious origin may deserve an article, but this isn't it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, notable topic, and I'd suggest merging some of the info. But since it's not really apparent what references back up what statement, it's probably worth just deletiing this synthetic essay. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ThuranX took the words out of my mouth.--Jt (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO we should have a full article on organ trafficking, but there's no way this should be the start of it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is notable and encyclopedic, but this is no way to cover it. Hut 6.5 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's a student essay apart of this school project that is using Wikipedia as it's personal web host. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete, I've moved the article and its history to Black market organs which is now a redirect to Organ transplantation. Avruch^T 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (The remaining redirect at The blackmarket kidney can be deleted.) Avruch^T 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article no longer exists. Shouldn't the AfD be closed? I'd do it but, I'm not sure how. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects International Golf has on the Economy[edit]

Yet another WP:OR essay from a student in the User:Globalecon/Global Economics project. According to the teacher's comments on AN/I, we can look forward to about a hundred of these. What fun. (Extra AfD credit if you can explain to me what the last sentence of this article—"When golfers speak of the game you cannot help but to remember its original birthplace of Scotland after all"—is supposed to mean.) Deor (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but hasn't it been deleted twice before? Czolgolz (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any deletions in the page log. All of these articles have been created only in the last couple of days. Deor (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; the previously speedied article had the slightly different title The Effects International Golf has on the Global Economy. Deor (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete Another OR essay. Enigma ^message 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to understand the last sentence. I think it's meant to be a shot at Scotland, but I'm not really sure. That's nonsense even by essay standards. How on earth can someone generalize about golfers speaking of the game? Enigma ^message 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious OR essay. Additionally, if the user named really intends to flood WP with essays of similar quality, surely that falls under the "WP is not free web hosting" aspect of WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Weak Keep I think it maaay make it on its own. I've tried to wikify it a bit, and maybe if we give the author a bit of time it will improve (significantly, I hope, because it has to). Noble Story (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced all of the articles being written by these kids should be ashcanned, but this one should. WP:OR and per nom. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, these pages have now risen to the level of being disruptive. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be fair, this class has produced some semi-decent articles (at least by new editor standards). However, this is an original research / synthesis essay, not an article. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another case of flagrant disregard for our rules by someone seeking to push OR. ThuranX (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm trying to find the link made between international golf and world economies, and I can't find it. There are a few assertions made that "many players ... have helped the economy in many ways", but absolutely no justification for that thesis. Moreover, there's some inappropriate synthesis going on - none of the sources talk about the economic impact of golf. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Black Kite 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 2011[edit]

While the 2009 iteration of this contest would be appropriate and probably has enough verifiable reliable sources to have an entry right now, WP:CRYSTAL suggests that the following iteration having an article would not be appropriate. As the article itself notes, it's not even certain who would be involved because the participants would be decided in 2008-2009. Erechtheus (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The competition has begun. The first qualification event, Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009, began on April 20.[20] (Grand Prix article not created yet, but coming soon). I guess I could put all the information in Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009, but the creation of this article (World Chess Championship 2011), is the correct place for description of the overall cycle; and allows it to be easily found from the navigation template Template:World Chess Championships. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first sentence says it all - it "WILL BE a match". The stub reads like an advertisement promoting an event that has yet to take place. While the event might be notable, the preliminary qualification events wouldn't appear to be worthy of an encyclopedia article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. Cleo123 (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to delete that one, why don't you delete 2008 Summer Olympics ? After all, it could still be cancelled, and the first sentence of the article is "The 2008 Summer Olympics [...] will be celebrated from..." so the first sentence says it all :-) SyG (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem that anything verifiable and of interest can be said about this event. Does it have a venue, a date, a host, etc? Are there verifiable sources for such info? If so I would change to a keep. If not, create the article again when something of note is verifiable about the event.Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Bubba73 explains below, there are articles on events that will take place in a far far away future, the most critical example being 2028 Summer Olympics. Even if an event has not taken place already, the plans about the event may be notable by themselves. SyG (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, the plans may be notable. Where is the evidence of that notability? The only plan mentioned is how to qualify, and the only source for that is not independant. I'm not bothered by it staying, because it seems sure to become notable sooner or later, but going by the book there's no evidence that it (or the plans for it) are notable right now, so going by strict policy it should be deleted unless evidence of notability can be provided. The closest I see right now is this, and that establishes a (maybe) reliable source but not notability. Where are the sources anticipating this event? Perhaps I'm being too literal about policy given that I think an article will probably be appropriate quite soon, but my reading of policy is to delete. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The event is notable, see World Chess Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, there's no way I'd deny that the series in general is~~n't~~ notable. The World Chess Championship sometimes makes international front-page news. I'm just saying that no evidence of notability for this particular 2011 event has been evidenced. The parent series being notable doesn't automatically make every event notable. It probably will become highly notable as it draws closer, but there's no evidence that it is right now. So technically it doesn't warrant an article at this time. Happy to change my opinion if evidence of notability of the 2011 event can be found. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clearly not an advertisement and doesn't read like one. It is an event that is definitely taking place and is verifible (the qualification process has already begun) so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. There's no point in deleting it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are articles about upcoming events such as 2012 Summer Olympics, 2014 Winter Olympics, 2016 Summer Olympics, 2018 Winter Olympics, 2020 Summer Olympics, 2022 Winter Olympics, 2024 Summer Olympics, and 2028 Summer Olympics, just to name a few. Bubba73 (talk), 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment We don't know where the 2028 olympics will be held, or who will be playing in them either. (Some of the paricipants haven't even been born yet!) So the arguement against the 2011 World Chess Championship doesn't hold water. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: And the qualifications for it have already started, i.e. Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep. Article is reliably sourced. Event has already started. It's verified and notable. WP:CRYSTAL is abided. SunCreator (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Ballard says, the qualifications have already begun. -- Jao (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't believe we have this discussion. Keep per Bubba and Peter Ballard.Voorlandt (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is indeed a planned event.--Berig (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with football (soccer) and the Olympics the process of vetting for this championship has already begun years in advance. That meets with WP:CRYSTAL. Just be thankful we only have one championship to worry about nowadays. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it is pretty clear which way this discussion is going, quoting from Crystal Ball "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". The event is notable, it is almost certainly going to take place, and the preliminary rounds have already started. Bubba73 (talk), 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The obvious difference between these Olympics articles and this one is that you can actually say something verifiable, notable, and with citation to reliable sources. You very apparently can't say more about this event than you can the 2040 US Presidential election. You can say that it's going to be a Republican versus a Democrat in 2040, and you can say that it's going to be the winner of one contest versus the winner of a competition between the winners of two other contests to determine the victor of the World Chess Championship in 2011. The preliminaries starting aren't enough. You have to actually be able to say something about the event. Erechtheus (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the 2011 world chess champion is a three-year procedure that has already started. The equivalent of the presidential primaries have already started. Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Months before that process started, we knew the players and the issues. Tons of reliable sources had offered coverage. Can the same be said here? If so, why isn't it in this article? Erechtheus (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - there needs to be more in the article, not less. Some of the participants are currently playing in the first round of the 2011 championship, Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the event the article is changed, I'll certainly re-evaluate my position. I think we're all happy to see this article around if it has something to say. Erechtheus (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is in the sub-article, Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. But the parent article World Chess Championship 2011 is needed to give context to the sub-article, because that is what's referenced from top-level articles like Template:World Chess Championships and World Chess Championship. Otherwise it's like having articles on the primaries but not on the election. I guess we could cut and paste all the information from Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009 to World Chess Championship 2011, but I'm of the opinion that if a person is using Wikipedia then they know how to follow links. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not redirect WCC2011 to the GP article until there is something to actually put in the WCC2011 article? Erechtheus (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is stuff that properly belongs in the WCC2011 article not the GP article, like details of the cycle, or the fact that this is the first "normal" cycle after the "special case" 2008 and 2009 matches. OK, that's not much, but why delete an article because it's short? Why merge articles which we know will need to be unmerged in the future? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What stuff? The cycle details need to be in the main WCC article. Same with the "normal" cycle stuff. I see absolutely nothing that needs to be at WCC2011 at this point. It seems to me that the chess community has just come out in force to see to it that a placeholder can be kept for whatever reason until notable things abotu WCC2011 actually start to happen. Erechtheus (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the preliminary rounds: Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. Bubba73 (talk), 22:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preliminary round that has started has its very own article. If that's all there is, I'd again propose redirect. Erechtheus (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is more to the event than just the preliminary round. The format of the whole cycle has gathered some comments and controversy from all over the world. I have added a "See also" section with a few links to give some hinsight on the reactions. SyG (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right. since 1948 the championship has usually been a three-year cycle, but the 2011 championship has a fprmat that is completely different from any other. Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing the World Chess Championship to the Olympics is a truly ludicrous analogy. Sorry, but to imply that these events are on the same footing in terms of notability strikes me as POV pushing. The fact that there is NO MATERIAL to contain in the article (!) should tell most reasonable editors that the article's creation is PREMATURE! GEESH! LOL! Cleo123 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qualifying events for this championship cycle have already begun. Quale (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some editors have expressed the view that a future event article with little to no content should not have a page. I have some sympathy with that idea, however WP:CRYSTAL does not say that at this time. For those who wish to delete future events articles with little or no contents then your welcome to try and get the WP:CRYSTAL policy changed accordingly. SunCreator (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a matter of WP:CRYSTAL being dispositive -- it's whether there are verifiable reliable sources such that this is presently notable. WP:CRYSTAL just offers some guidance as to the types of considerations that are weighed. It does not, contrary to what some seem to be indicating, say that if preparations have begun, the article should exist. Erechtheus (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More than preperations have begun. The games that will decide the 2011 World Chess Champion started last month. These are equivalent to the division playoffs in the baseball World Series or the primaries in the US presidential elections. Except for the person who wins the 2009 World Cup, the particpants are named in Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. Bubba73 (talk), 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the cycle is already in motion dispels any WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Content is verifiable, and the tournament is well covered in independent press. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michi-chan[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The article contains no sources and I could not find any Reliable Source coverage. From the article, it appears that none of their parody songs have been released commercially. BlueAzure (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Touring, awards, or releases on major labels: these are things that can show notability under WP:MUSIC. I don't see any of those here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability whatsoever per WP:MUSIC. Also note that the intro identifies the singer as being Recnet (talk · contribs), the author's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claims of notability, miles away from passing WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourced article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for references comes up empty, appears to be self-promotion. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 author request (see below) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Appointed Time[edit]

One of the worst cases of vanity wikispamming I’ve ever seen. The user created a page for a non-notable book published by a notorious vanity press [21]. The book itself abysmally fails WP:BK, being completely lacking in WP:RS to establish notability of any kind. Google throws up nothing but wikimirrors, blogs, forums, sales portals[22], and an Amazon page that, at this very moment, shows the book being outsold by 4,436,932 other books. There are no independent published reviews, no features pieces, nothing in the legitimate book-review media about this vanity book. And the bad news doesn’t stop there. I must report that the same user who created this article has been busy spam-linking it around Wikipedia. For example, look at these blatant and ugly diffs: [23][24]. The user also created Marianna Singleton, the main character of the vanity-press novel, and then used it as a redirect to the article about the novel itself. This is the case of a vanity-press novel that came out nearly a year ago, immediately bombed, and then showed up here in somebody’s attempt to use Wikipedia as a spamming platform. I say delete. I say salt. And I say permanently block. Qworty (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Qworty (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about assuming a bit of good faith? This nomination appears to be rooted in a lot of hostility. Rather than jumping the gun and going straight to AFD, wouldn't it be preferable to tag the article for notability issues and allow the article's creator an opportunity to source the material? No offense, but the editor would appear to be a brand new user and it doesn't appear that any attempt has been made to communicate with them. Let's not WP:BITE the newbies. The page may not ultimately meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines, but in fairness, I think we should give the author some opportunity to improve it. Cleo123 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a book from a major publisher such as Random House, that's certainly the way to go. But with a book from a vanity press, we are much closer to an outright assumption of WP:SPAM. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:BK, no sources at all besides writer's own blog. And yeah, there's pretty clearly self-promotion going on, although in this case lack of notability is clear enough that that isn't the primary reason for deletion by a long shot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems unlikely to pass WP:BK. Unsure that protection/salting is really necessary at this time, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Salting isn't needed yet. Let's wait and see how persistant they are if the page is deleted. Alberon (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had no intention of creating such hostility. However, seeing that I did, please go ahead and delete this article, all associated images, and all links. Thanks for the civility and understanding. Maple50 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and then redirect to List of Latin phrases. Sandstein (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ars est celare artem[edit]

Doesn't seem like an encyclopedic topic. Wikiquote, maybe? Powers ^T 02:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic, nn. JJL (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of Latin phrases has it as simply "ars celare artem." (Perhaps that's all the coverage we need?) AnturiaethwrTalk 06:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In attempting to verify the exact quote I find it isn't even Ovid's, but medieval. The article thus has nothing useful. I think a redirect to List of Latin phrases is fine. --Dhartung | Talk 11:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Dhartung.--Berig (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although strong indications of noatbility are given, there is still a significant number of editors that remain unconvinced. There is currently no consensus to delete the article, but there certainly isn't a consensus for keeping either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and Ice climbing club[edit]

Non-notable climbing club. Damiens.rf 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's not even one source so notability isn't established. ArcAngel (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A club established in the 1950s which included such UK climbing greats as Don Whillans and Joe Brown seems clearly notable. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Whillans mentions it under the name "Rock and Ice Club", with founding members including Whillans & Brown, and states "The reputation of the club, and its members, lasted well into the 1960s and influenced several subsequent generations of climbers." It's also mentioned in the Joe Brown biography site [25], which says "This was a club never that owned a hut, nor had much in the way of a constitution or rules, but was nevertheless became one of the most influential clubs in the history of British climbing. Indeed, in no other club before or since has there been such a mixture of drive and talent, so that it stood head and shoulders above everything else – its members regarded with awe wherever they went." Espresso Addict (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The club is also mentioned in several climbing guidebooks, including the BMC guides to Kinder, Stanage and Langdale; the Langdale guide (1999) says "a new group of 'tigers' from Wales, the 'little men', the men of the Rock and Ice ... these men proved to be the most formidable group of climbers ever to operate on British rock." There's a whole chapter on the club in Brown's autobiography, Hard Years (2001; ISBN 9780898868456) (see [26]). It also appears in Sherman Exposed: Slightly Censored Climbing Stories (2001; ISBN 0898868521): "He and Joe Brown were the famous 'climbing plumbers' who made up the core of the Rock and Ice club, a group instrumental in the development of modern free climbing." [27]

Some other online sources include "For about a decade and a half following the end of the Second World War, British rock climbing was dominated by Joe Brown and Don Whillans and their compatriots in the Manchester Rock and Ice Club. Such was the unprecedented severity of this group's climbs, and especially those of Brown, that they immediately took on an aura of impregnability. ... the mythical reputation of the Rock and Ice Club..." (The Independent [28]); "He and Brown formed the nucleus of a climbing club, The Rock and Ice. Anarchic, unhindered by rules and regulations, this loose assemblage of working-class men slept in road-menders' huts and hitched or begged lifts around the country. They were vertical beatniks, choosing a life that they perceived as more free than the alternative their schoolmates in Manchester had followed. ... The pair form a famous partnership that becomes the basis of a climbing club, The Rock and Ice." (The Guardian; [29]) "These were the years of the pre-eminence of the Rock and Ice, with the mighty muscled Don Whillans and Joe Brown at the pinnacle of their club, and also of British climbing." (Climbers Club Journal [30]); "Climbing on these cliffs reached its zenith in the decade after the second World War, with Joe Brown and his fellow climbers from the 'Rock and Ice' club driving exploration forward at an unprecedented rate." (Climbing in Snowdonia [31]); "Rock climbing in Britain as a whole was, for the rest of the decade, dominated to a considerable degree by the members of the Rock and Ice Club, though their impact on Wales was immensely greater than on the Lakes." (FRCC Journal, [32]) etc etc... Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't tell if Don Whillans and Joe Brown are especially notable, but even if so this could just be mentioned on their pages instead. This page doesn't add anything. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're probably the best-known rock-climbers in Britain in the 20th century. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete Notability not evidenced. I read the link provided by Espresso Addict and looked for more. There are a few, but all in articles about the reputation of the climbers and only as a side-reference. The club's reputation seems to have rested entirely on these two climbers, it didn't outlast them. So it seems the club should just be mentioned on their articles, and not have its own unless some sources can be found that are specifically about the club and not just in passing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few references to other climbers, such as Chris Bonington & Des Hadlum -- see eg [33] Espresso Addict (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the first book I grabbed from the bookshelf, A Brief History of British Mountaineering "The routes put up by this elite grouping attracted an aura and kudos which would hold for most of the decade..." Brown and Whillans were not the only important members, just the most important ones. It was also noteworthy for being one of the first important climbing clubs to have a predominantly working class membership, as opposed to the old Oxonians and Cantabrigians who dominated the Alpine Club, thus marking an important change in the demographic of British climbing, and I'll see if I can find some specific references for that later. As Expresso Addict points out, it gets a full chapter in Brown's Autobiography, and another full chapter in Whillains' biography The Villain, and on a quick skim read that chapter looks to be at least as much about the club as about Whillains himself. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that "A Brief History of British Mountaineering" was published by the British Mountaineering Council....--Damiens.rf 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure as to the relevance of this comment. The BMC is the national body that represents rock climbing, mountaineering and hill walking in the UK, and publishes many books among its very varied activities. I don't think the Rock and Ice club is one of the clubs that fused to form it, and it doesn't even seem to appear among the long list of clubs that are officially affiliated. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, there is no problem with the source Actually it was originally published by the separate Mountain Heritage Turst anyway [34], and republished by the BMC the following year. But if that's not good enough, how about this passage from The Villain - "[After acknowledging that other climbers were making significant ascents at the time]... Nontheless, in terms of a significant series of new climbs, sustained over a number of years and coincident with the very highest standard of the day, there would be few willing to argue with any conviction against the pre-eminence throughout the decade of the members of the Rock and Ice Club" (page 91). There's quite a bit of other stuff in there about the history of the club, but I am busy in real life right now, so might not have chance to digest it properly and add it to the article for a few days. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My problem is that the notability for this climbing club is being established by a book published by a climbing-council and written by a climber whose notability comes from being the recipient of a mountain-literature prize from some organization created to promote mountain-related-literature.
      
      Everything seems like a complicated network of self-promotion. --Damiens.rf 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jim Perrin is an extremely credible author, whose books are published by a major publishing house and get good reviews in the mainstream press - see, for example, [35] [36] [37]. So what if he was also a climber - it means he knows something about his subject. And the Boardman Tasker's credibility is not diminished because it's awarded by a body which promotes mountain literature, any more than the Booker Prize is diminished by the fact that it's awarded by a body which seeks to promote literature in general [38]. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a self-promotion issue, they seem like reliable sources. It's to be expected that people writing about climbers will be other climbers and climbing organisations. What I'm still not seeing is evidence of notability, namely sources that are primarily about the club. It's like relatives of famous people, they don't get an article just because they're mentioned a lot in sources about the famous person. Unless there are sources primarily about the relative, they only get mentioned in the famous person's article. Does the "Brief History of British Mountaineering" have a chapter on the club, or is it just that passing mention? The club being mentioned is not evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph intertwined with several pages about its members and their exploits - but then it is a "brief" history after all. And as the achievements of a climbing club are the sum total of the achievements of its members, coverage of the two is not always readily separable. Regardless, I don't think the analogy with children of famous people is a good one - that's also partly a privicy issue as they tend not to be public figures. I might agree if the club was notable only for the membership of a single climber, say Don Whillans, that having it as a redirect to his article would be in order. But there are at least two members with articles, and probably several others who should have articles, so information about the club is going to end up spread over numerous distinct pages. But it's well known, mentioned frequently in climbing literature and guidebooks, so readers are going to come to Wikipedia looking for information on it, and as we have no single page to redirect them to, it's right that we should have at least a short article outlining its history, and pointing them to where they can find more information on its members, even if there isn't a great deal of readily available sourcing solely devoted to the club itself. This is one situation where the interests of the encyclopaedia are better served by a common sense approach than by a rigid or legalistic interpretation of WP:N. That said, given the importance of the club and its membership, I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't articles about its history in back issues of climbing magazines, though as my own colletion of those is rather small, I can't go searching for them. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least three members have articles, Chris Bonington was also a member (see earlier comment). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it's a fairly strict interpretation of WP:N to argue for deletion in this case. It's true that having each of the member's pages mention the club without the club having an article may reduce the ability of interested readers to research that period of UK rock climbing via wikipedia. I've changed my opinion to a weak delete. Strictly speaking notability has not been demonstrated, but common sense suggests that readers of wikipedia may find the article useful. The article is only a few months old, so perhaps enough material could be found in time to move it beyond a stub. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When common sense conflicts with the wording of the notability guideline then common sense should prevail. WP:IAR is policy, but WP:N is only a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me, I'm sure there must be more information out there, and images to boot. Another paragraph or two and a picture of a couple of climbers would certainly improve it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per Ryan Paddy. AvocadoJellyfish (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I was brought up in the 1950s not far from Stanage Edge where Don Whillans and Joe Brown put up some of their greatest climbs. I not only heard about them but about the Rock and Ice Club also. Its influence on British Climbing was great. The sources that are referred to above clearly demonstrate this. It makes no sense to have an encyclopedia that covers rock climbing to not have an article on this club. Is it surprising that a book on climbing is written by a climber? Jim Perrin is clearly independent of this club and writes much more recently than when it was famous. --Bduke (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the sources quoted, a major group of international significance. DGG (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poor! but Expansion of article yes, requires additional refs yes, deletion no. Notable yes. Self-promotion no more than any article written by those involved in subject. If the article is not expanded soon I will say Delete.

Nk.sheridan Talk 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to improve the article based on the sources I've uncovered, if it's kept here, but I don't have access to much in the way of printed sources on the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources have been found to demonstrate that this an encyclopedic subject. All the delete comments look like WP:WIKILAWYERING attempts to show that the sources don't meet some strange interpretation of the letter of the rules. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purse Differences Between the PGA and LPGA Tour[edit]

I'm loathe to bite a student working on a class project, but this article, while a fine essay, is a textbook case of synthesis and original research. It is unfortunate that male golfers make more than their female counterparts, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for article that speculates about why this is the case, and how it could be fixed. (FYI, this is another article resulting from the econ class at: User:Globalecon/Global Economics). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons listed (although if this closes as a delete, please userfy to the author). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - this is hopelessly made up of original research, and can't be kept. I'd agree that the subject (sex discrimination in golf) is probably notable though, so the user should be given a chance to rewrite it in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and then we might be able to accept it. Terraxos (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the reason men make more than women is the same as in tennis: revenue generated. Not only is it OR, it's a garbage essay in my opinion. Enigma ^message 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a free webhost. Nakon 03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN and WP:OR X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another hopeless OR essay. Somebody please tell these kids that WP is not a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a webhost. NOT a classroom substitute. NOT a target for some professor's social experiments. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Thuran's comments. Minkythecat (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. I have no issue with Mr. Luellen's article getting renominated if in fact he, as a signed free agent, never in fact makes it off practic squad for the Chargers. But that's for later. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Luellen[edit]

~~Unsigned~~Undrafted free-agent NFL rookie, non-notable college career. Speedy was declined. I've speedy-tagged several other similar articles by the same author that were deleted by other admins. --Finngall ^talk 01:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable sports player. I can understand why the speedy was declined, but there's nothing here to justify keeping it. Terraxos (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of news stories on this guy. Notability may be marginal, but he's on the right side of the margin. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems rather notable to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFL players are inherently notable. He is undrafted, not unsigned, by the way. --B (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is he really an NFL player if he gets cut before playing a regular-season game? Are you really saying that every warm body a team brings in to training camp merits an article? --Finngall ^talk 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy In A Magazine[edit]

This is a non-notable song per WP:MUSIC that has not yet been released on an album that has not been released (bringing up WP:CRYSTAL issues. Prod removed without comment. Erechtheus (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Single hasn't been released yet, hasn't charted, etc., and therefore isn't the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above users. Cleo123 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - it may become notable in the future, but that isn't the case now. - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In A Wikipedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is found to be suffiently sourced in secondary sources to be considered notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Gosiengfiao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article is about a relatively unknown celebrity to the general population of the Philippines. Page seems designed to boost ego and popularity as well as advertise. A Deviantart account is not a valid official website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belazekial (talk • contribs) 2008/04/22 19:55:14

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS coverage and ghits are limited to DevianArt and Flickr type sites, no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Change to weak keep per Lenticel's second source. Not sure the first about her wig collection establishes notability and the Animax site is a press release TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference site, Animax Asia [39], is valid. Thanks! Bizarro33^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What happened to the first nomination? It seems to be empty. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there never was one. No idea why the nominator named it as second. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely fails WP:BIO. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from the animax source, she has two articles in the Philippine Daily Inquirer [40][41]. I'm not surprised that you find nothing in Google News since Internet news archiving isn't that famous here in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The 2nd Inquirer.net source did not appear in the Inquirer newspaper -- it's part of the web-only anime blog. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note; Scan provided below shows that "Lady anime" did appear in the newspaper.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually think this is the third nomination already. No improvement for notability since last nomination. --Howard the Duck 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Inquirer articles were officially published on the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer. Bizarro33^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 1:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You already commented. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make it clear that not all content on Inquirer.net gets to be published at the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper. Some are web-only editions. --Howard the Duck 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Anime newspaper scan from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Bizarro33^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 2:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter. If she was on some TV show I would even consider. Mind you, yours truly was featured in a newspaper too, does that mean I'll have a Wikipedia article. --Howard the Duck 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bizarro33 may be a Single-purpose account. --Howard the Duck 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I motion for deletion, ladies and gentlemen. Why promote the popularity of this girl when she absolutely has done NOTHING to society. She is NOT a celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.217.145.202 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is not a reason for deletion. Better do that to the Paris Hilton article. --Howard the Duck 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'delete per nom and howardtheduck. No one knows the Philippines like Howard the Duck.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do repsect Howard but he is not infallible and not the only person who has expertise in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 30 April 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 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not up to what we personally think about this, but going accordingly to the guidelines. This article seems to meet basic criteria for WP:N. It is quite sad because this person would have no place in a "real" encyclopedia. Blame the crappy rules of WP:N and WP:BIO...but that's for another day i guess :) --Do you know me??...then SHUT UP!!! 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Udonknome (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete - the sources don't provide much evidence of notability. On second thoughts, keep. There's significant coverage from multiple reliable sources here, and that's all that WP:BIO requires. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An appearance and a corporate sponsored award in one episode of a cable TV show does not merit notability. And do we really need a list of what character she cosplayed according by event and year? Most of these events go unnoticed even by the general population of Filipino anime/manga fans. Going by the rules of of WP:BIOL she has not won or been nominated enough times for the awards featured in this page (which i repeat are not notable enough by themselves). Belazekial (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's on the thin edge of demonstrating the subject's notability, but does do so to my eye. Better (more explicit) referencing would help, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. . The article was not edited during the 3 weeks of AfD, which obviates the "provisional keep"s. Don't take it personally, Carboxen; consider writing about more notable topics instead. Sandstein (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gotthelf Immanuel Friedlaender[edit]

Notability is not established. The article's subject was a geologist and a professor, published some works, but was not specially notable or influential. It seems that all (of the few) google hits for his name are Wikipedia mirrors, with the sole exception of his bio on the webpage of the university he worked for. Damiens.rf 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep: Might be hard to establish his impact and notability just from google, since most of his work was presumably done mid-20th century. I did a quick google book search, found better citations for his father Immanuel: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47], but some minor ones for him: [48] [49] [50]. But perhaps more problematic is that his earlier publications are in German. So presumably his greatest impact would be in German Geology work and I'm not sure how to search those printed periodicals from the mid 1900's. Then again, it's not our job. The article author must establish the influence of the subject. Agree that it is not currently established. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From seeing the additional publications in GeoRef, and doing my best to read German via altavista, I'm getting the sense that he was an expert in alpine quartz study half a century ago. Secondary citation searches aren't possible for that period, using the databases, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep From worldcat, 5 singificant publication on Swiss (not German) geology. chairman at a university. Note: not included in Web of Science--the early part does not includes the European geology journals he published in. Further checking should take into account the alternate spellings, Friedlander and Friedlănder DGG (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Owlmonkey. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Article Author Note) - I have only now seen this discussion and AfD. I will check into it myself a bit more now. Please note that the research publications database that covers the field of Geology best is not ISI Web of Science, but GeoRef. Web of Science is strongly biased in favor of certain disciplines, and types and languages of publications, and only certain subfields of Geology are reasonably represented (like geophysics and geochemistry). I will check when I am back in my office. Regards, --Carboxen (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Started compiling more information here, in support of the subject. Getting late in the Midwest now, g'nite compadres! --Carboxen (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep, based on comments of the article creator above. Should be given some time to gather references to establish notability. It might also be worth talking to the German Wikipedia embassy to see if they can turn anything up. If nothing comes up over the next few days, then delete the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Provisional keep. Agree with Lankiveil -- creator should be given enough time to provide evidence of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:43, 29 April 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 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some references have been provided, but ultimately I'm not convinced that he's more notable than the average academic. As far as I can tell, he's just a fairly unexceptional geologist, which isn't enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dalhousie piece doesn't really establish notability; it's mostly not about him at all, and when it is about him it's mostly negative (the other faculty being unhappy with his administrative skills and the outgoing students having problems in the field because of not having learned what they should have from his classes) and possibly biased. In the absence of anything else to base a bio on, I think it's better not to have one at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Article Author Note) Look guys, I have a 7day-14h academic faculty day job and a disabled family member. I have only just started compiling a rebuttal. What irks me here is that independently of actual subject outcome, you cannot assume immediate response and daily logons from every author. If you want to be that inquisitional and jump to conclusions, then you must have a lot more time than I have. The world will be blinded from having to see that article another few days. Fine, take it all off, and potentially loose a senior publishing scientist/science historian - not from the deletion but from the treatment here. --Carboxen (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)-[reply]
Delete. Just not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. non admin closure Cenarium (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bantay Bata[edit]

While it is a great organization, I can't find anything that makes the organization all that... notable. This seems to be more or less advertising for the organization. In addition, significant portions (such as Services) have been copied without attribution or rephrasing from the main web-site, or are used as quotes. seicer | talk | contribs 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient evidence of notability in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep this is the most silly deletion request I have ever seen. The work of Bantay Bata makes it an icon in the Philippines. It is comparable to the Fred Hollows or Smith family appeal organizations. If were going to delete this, then lets delete the Red Cross. Honestly, if this was in a western country this deletion request would not have even been posted. The article needs some work, and noticed that a number of editors already getting involved, good.Susanbryce (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added sources to the article already. Question: Does a fund raising competition by the University Athletic Association of the Philippines and National Collegiate Athletic Association and a personal donation by the President of the Philippines add notability?--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: We have an article for that: see UAAP-NCAA All-Star Game. --Howard the Duck 03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable organization in my country. The article does need some rewriting (any article that has a Vision and Mission section definitely needs refactoring). --seav (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. More importantly, the article is USEFUL. Its presence on Wikipedia does no harm. Cleo123 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable organization, just doesn't have a lot of US pull. But organizations like Alpha Phi Omega which have a presence mainly in the US and the Philippines know a lot about it. I say we keep and see where the article goes over the next few days. Jussen (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a notable organisation.--Berig (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements in sources and the evident notability. The article definitely could use a cleanup though. ~ mazca ^talk 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though stub it, shorten a bit and less advertising! Sethie (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In spite of all the attention raised by this AfD, the article still only says that she is related to notable gang members who were killed. Nothing added to the article has changed what the nominator said. Mention of her can be in other Moran articles. Bduke (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Moran[edit]

This person is not notable for anything other than being related to three victims of the Melbourne gangland killings. -- Longhair\^talk 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first it looked like a clear deletion article but I can find many news stories. Lots about her book, and its subsequent withdrawal from sale, quite a bit about her signing with Harry M Miller as an agent. She appears to talk to the media frequently, be commented on frequently and is still generating press interest. She was scheduled for a TV appearance in Crime Mums but this was pulled by court order Herald Sun April 22, 2008. Looks to meet the WP:BIO requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very sorry for her loss, but the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Imagine if we allowed all relatives of murder victims to have their own articles based on the fact that they were interviewed by the media? There would be thousands and thousands of articles of this type. Cleo123 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peripitus. She's very notable in Australia in her own right. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peripitus & X Marx the Spot. As others have said, she is a notable person in Australia in her own right, she has written a book and appears regularly in the media. The article provides information about the relationships with her first husband, also involved in crime and father off her eldest son and second husband, father of her second son. This information does not apppear anywhere else. J Bar (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the article contains information that "does not appear anywhere else," then that is justification for deletion, not inclusion. From what I can tell, this woman was married to a man who was killed, and then later--in an unrelated incident--her son was killed. That's not notability. That's nothing more than a terrible coincidence. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Correction to Qworty's understanding of her circumstances... Moran's first husband was murdered during the 1980's. Her estranged husband, and her two sons also became murder victims during the recent Melbourne gangland killings. -- Longhair\^talk 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's that anything more than a coincidence? She didn't hire anybody to kill them, right? They weren't killed because of her, right? It looks to me as if she had nothing at all to do with any of these killings. Just how is she notable? Also, what is the name of her book and who published it? I'm looking all over the net for it and can't find it. I need to be able to assess its notability to see if she qualifies under WP:BK. But I would say off-hand that she probably isn't notable as a writer if her book is this hard to find. I understand that her first book was withdrawn--if this is all there is to it, then she can't be notable for writing a non-book and not participating in killings. Qworty (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly their deaths were not a coincidence as all the killings were related. They were all killed as part of a gangland war relating to criminal activity that Judy Moran's family was involved in. As for notability, she is more than a grieving wife and mother, she is a member of a Melbourne crime family involved in activities that have been covered to the point of over-exposure in the Melbourne press including the Herald-Sun (circulation 551,100) and The Age(circulation 196,250) and in national television programs. They have been the subject of books such as the Underbelly series written by John Silvester, later made into a high-rating drama series - Underbelly (TV series). She has been the direct subject of multiple news items and clearly meets the primary notability criteria under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Interviewed on Channel Seven the other night Today Tonight to defy judge's orders. A "gangland mother" with more notoriety than notability (but notable due to the notoriety). Heaps of hits i.e. The Age, Brisbane Times a You Tube video etc. Definitely requires an article.--Sting au Buzz Me... 05:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable as a 'gangland mother' and the subject of many media stories over the years. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N - the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While she is notable mainly for the actions of others, that does not mean she is not notable. The amount of coverage given in the Australian media indicates that clearly. The only concern I have is WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, if I'm related somehow to a notable person, who is murdered - and in the ensuing publicity that surrounds that case, I am interviewed many times by largely tabloid media outlets - does that make ME - notable??? Sorry, kids, but that's all I see here. Cleo123 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, it isn't one person murdered but three, all in separate but related incidents. Secondly she isn't "related somehow" like a second cousin or a niece but is the wife and mother of the murdered criminals. Thirdly, she is not a passive victim interviewed about her grief but an active player in the propaganda side of the "war". Did you bother reading the articles brought up by the news search? Lastly, patronising remarks such as "Sorry, kids" do you and your argument little credit. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I did read the pathetic smattering of articles presented. What I saw was a bunch of tabloid garbage. This person is NOT notable on an international level in my opinion, and should not be included on Wikipedia. What has this person "accomplished"? Nothing, as far as I can see. She's just related to people who were murdered and she got herself some publicity out of that. Wikipedia should not be misused to promote wanna-be celebrities of any sort. And I was not attempting to be "patronizing" to anyone by using the phrase "sorry, kids". I work in the entertainment industry, where this is a very commonly used term of endearment. I wasn't attempting to make anyone feel insecure about their youth. And attempting to pick a personal argument with editors who don't share your POV, does little to help your own argument. Cleo123 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a strawman to knock down, expect to be called on it. If that is "picking a personal argument", so be it. Notability does not need to be established on an "international level", try reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for reasons why. The fact that you have not heard of her in New York does not somehow make her unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Further, what the subject has "accomplished" is irrelevant when assessing notability. You do not have be "accomplished" to be notable, see Martin Bryant for an example of a man without any "accomplishments", nevertheless suitable for inclusion. As for "tabloid", how does that have any bearing? Tabloid or not, notability is notability; Paris Hilton has made a career of tabloid notoriety. Sounds like snobbery to me to suggest otherwise. Your explanation (apology?) for the "Sorry, kids" term would carry more weight if the earlier comment wasn't loaded with capital letters and multiple question marks, as if to say that anyone serious couldn't possibly support the argument. To follow that with "Sorry, kids" seems like an attempt to demean other editors. Your explanation (apology?) for your use of the term would carry more weight if it wasn't followed by insinuations of insecurity. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing notoriety with notability. There's quite a difference when one considers what is encyclopedic and what is WP:NOT. Cleo123 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable as a 'gangland mother' and the subject of many media stories over the years, as noted above. 72.241.99.251 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of secondary sourcing, was portrayed in a major Australian TV series... so definitely notable. WP:BLP should be a concern for this article, but that is no reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
keep per User:Peripitus et al. Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per Cleo. Five Years 11:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Above the Law - A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession - Latham & Watkins to Free Stress Tests?

[1]