Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD G5, banned user) by Woody. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Day[edit]

This article cites zero sources, and comes up with no Google sources whatsoever. MixItUp 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced fancruft. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too cute for words. Mandsford (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per WP:NFF. Please notify me (or any admin) if or when the movie is in production and can be verified with reliable sources saying just that, happy to undelete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Aur Mrs. Khanna[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to possible, unforeseen issues with budgeting, scripting, and casting, all future films are recommended to be deleted until the movie enters into actual production. --TBC !?! 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the filming hasn't begun yet but as per a reliable source on the film's page (Mumbai Mirror), it is going to begin in a couple of days. Furthermore, the makers of the film have already entered production and have made a poster for the film. Rm the deletion tag and leave the page until the end of March. If there is no news of the film filming by then, we can delete it and create the page when the film does start filming. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 17:43, 28 February 2008

I'd suggest copying the page to your userspace instead and reinstating it when production has been confirmed by reliable sources to have begun. (Production means shooting the film, not pre-production, poster design, or photoshoots.) NFF is not new anymore, and I know that you have been aware of it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leaning towards Weak keep - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and really an encyclopedic should be covering what has happened to date rather than looking into the future but given that there are four valid references and a poster I think it is more than valid. There ar emany other pre production film articles on wikipedia and while I wouldn't encourage starting them years before they are released I think they can have some encyclopedic value even in the early stages. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nominator is correct that it explicitly fails WP:NFF. It should be copied in a user page and reposted when it finally commences filming.BWH76 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kambakth Ishq[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to possible, unforeseen issues with budgeting, scripting, and casting, all future films are recommended to be deleted until the movie enters into actual production. --TBC !?! 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has already entered into actual production. There is even a release date. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the filming hasn't begun yet but it is going to begin in a month or two. Furthermore, the makers of the film have already entered production and there is also a confirmed release date for the film. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 17:37, 28 February 2008

You mean pre-production. Production means the film is shooting. We've been over this before, and WP:NFF is very clear on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF; concur with TBC. Coffee4me (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was off the air. (In other words, delete.) Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WDVL[edit]

Non-notable radio station. The station is closed-circuit and has no secondary sources listed (fails WP:RS). As per a discussion on WP:RADIO here, the station fails notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable and un-licensed. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging the tiny bit of information present to either the sister station article, the school's article, or perhaps both. - Dravecky (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge. Note: WDVL appears to be the the call sign of 2 defunct real FM stations (one in Indiana - 88.1 10,000w until 2006, the other in New Jersey in the 1970s). No objection to a rewrite as the real FM station. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WCVF-FM. Simply mention that there's another station on campus called "WDVL". Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, maybe a paragraph (at best) in the WCVF article. Mr mark taylor (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. If the band were notable, the albums could be merged. Because the band fails WP:MUSIC, so do the albums. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Townhall[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. - Sc straker (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I bundled the band's three albums in as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like just a local band. -- Atama ^chat 23:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. This is the wrong venue for a merge discussion. Use the article talk page and proposed merge procedures. Bringing an article here with "hopes for a merge consensus" isn't appropriate in deletion venue, although it is often the consensus that arises. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Romney[edit]

Non-notable son of Mitt Romney considering running for public office. I have been unable to find any references to him other than his father's campaign or his contemplated run for congress. I had proposed to merge this article with Mitt Romney, but could not find concensus with its creator. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article to the Personal Life section of the Mitt Romney article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and wanting to run for Congress (which isn't notable) is not the equivalent of actually running for Congress (which, in most cases, would be). Also, being unable to find consensus with an editor for merging/splitting an article should not be a valid reason for deleting an article entirely.--TBC !?! 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly concur. I was hoping for a merge concensus here. That is why I mentioned it in the nom. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, do not delete - I don't think "non-notable son" is a fair or accurate. He has received significant national attention in the last year while campaigning on behalf of his father. While that in itself does not warrant an article, he is being mentioned in the national media as a candidate for Congress. This only became known in the past two days, yet it has already been covered by numerous well known media outlets, such as Fox News, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the Drudge Report, and more.

Update...In light of the other feedback here, if a decision to remove a separate article is made before any additional campaign details emerge, I would suggest merge, either with the Mitt Romney article, the Pratt-Romney article, or both (Mitt Romney campaign details in his article, Josh Romney business/Congressional details on the Pratt-Romney article, with the possibility of restoring this article as is if an official candidacy is announced). Jrclark (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why there is so much pressure to delete or merge this article - it hasn't even been proposed as a 'merge' for a day.

We'll know for sure in the next three weeks if he will be an official candidate. If he choose not to run, then yes, I would suggest we delete or merge the article. In the meantime, this is a nationally known person running for a high office with national press coverage.Jrclark (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The notability of an article cannot be determined by a future, speculative event, especially as one as uncertain as that. If the candidacy for Congress is confirmed, then the article could merit a split, but until then there isn't enough to warrant a separate article.--TBC !?! 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources tonight to the article, to demonstrate notability. Will continue to do so as the national press continues to cover this. Jrclark (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the notability of the article is based mostly on speculation, even if news of a possible (but unconfirmed) candidacy is released tonight.--TBC !?! 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some more Josh Romney references/articles (per Wikipedia recommendations) from the past year, from across the country, to try to further demonstrate notability. Jrclark (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the references you've added, most of them essentially state that Josh had been campaigning for his father, which isn't unexpected (as he's Mitt's son and all) and certainly not enough to warrant a separate article.--TBC !?! 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they demonstrate that he is not only notable in Utah, but also across the country. None of his four brothers have received this much press or notability, nor have any other children on the campaign trail that I know of, other than Chelsea Clinton. Again, I believe he is a notable figure who continues to receive national attention and may be running for the Federal House of Representatives. Jrclark (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Being a candidate for office is not enough for WP:BIO, and being a son of a presidential candidate is somewhat less notable than being a son of a President, which itself is not inherently notable. At this point there is little coverage of him that is independent of his father. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When he does something notable on his own, he can have an article. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - as per the nom and TBC's comments.BWH76 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio. I'm going to presume that the ArbCom injunction is not intended to prevent deletion of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto--Biography[edit]

Found this while sorting through uncat pages. This is an expanded fictional biography of Naruto Uzumaki which has no sources, unwikified and has some OR. It is also redundant to the more comprehensive discussion in the character's article. Not feasible as a redirect. Lenticel ^(talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverified original research on an anime character that already has his own comprehensive article on Wikipedia. As nom mentioned, no redirect as it's unlikely anyone will search for the topic using the title "Naruto--Biography".--TBC !?! 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate per above. MixItUp 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holy crap textdump. Nothing worth saving here. Also according to his user page he is planning to make more of these. Someone better set him straight.JuJube (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This so blatantly violates WP:NOT#PLOT that it's making me cross-eyed. Oh wait, thats form all of the listas sorting. >_< But we already have an article on Naruto Uzumaki so the ArbCom injunction doesn't apply here. It also appears that his has created similar articles on other character which have already been speedy deleted. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice and rapidity. Horrendous WP:PLOT, and as we already have Naruto Uzumaki that's heading for GA, I would certainly hope that injunction doesn't apply. Collectonian (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't think it qualifies as speedy, but it's got big plotty issues, hella unsourcing, and we've already got an article that doesn't need a spinoff. I suspect given the duplication, this would count as housekeeping and so not under the ArbCom injunciton. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the main article about Naruto (the character) and the idea of an article about a ficitonal character's bio is contrary to what Wikipedia is not, nevermind the style guideline on writing about fiction. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; redundant, fails WP:PLOT, etc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyvio from here. I'm tagging it for speedy. Hazillow (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete , fails WP:BIO notability criteria based on lack of independent sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesham Tillawi[edit]

According to this Hesham (or Hisham? The article disagrees with itself) is not the president or on the board of the Palestinian American Congress. The article also says that he is the host of Current Issues, but doesn't say what or where Current Issues is (the blue link is a circular redirect). I'd notify User:EliasAlucard of this discussion, but he was recently blocked indefinitely.

Here is an example of his work [1], and there also appears to be some biographical information available about him at www.davidduke.com. Otherwise, he doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Avruch^T 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There seems to be a lot of info about him on the internet, I can't find anything on him from an independent reliable source. Everything seems to be from blogs, web sites of individuals, etc. Because of this, it appears the subject does not meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Furthermore, the information that I've found on these websites seem to illustrate that he is simply the host of a local access television show which would not lead to satisfying the WP:NOT requirements. BWH76 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the sources for WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Hopefully Noah will be able to improve the article and avoid a quick return trip here.--Kubigula (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kush (herb)[edit]

This is not a notable or reliably verifiable subset or strain of cannabis and thus I propose that the article be removed. Sites like as "www.4cannabis.com" do not fall under (or anywhere near) the umbrella of a reliable source. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable and referenced form of cannabis. [2] [3]. I'll incorporate the references if the article is kept. —Noah 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article title needs to change to something like Kush (cannabis). —Noah 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The news archive cited above has some trivial mentions, but I could not locate any scholarly sources indicating that this is a legitimate "strain" of cannabis. If this can be corrected ala WP:HEY please leave me a note on my talk page and I will revise my motion. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there are sources that indicate that this is a notable strain of cannabis, as there are numerous sources on google books/scholar that mention Kush specifically. Rigby27 Talk 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I have tried to reliably source this but failed. Yes, there are references to 'Kush' as one of the numerous terms for cannabis. However, none of the sources identified by Noah actually support the content of the page. There were two references in the page. One was purely a sales link that I have removed. The other has some content but is hardly reliable. The existence of the term is not sufficient for a page; we need reliable content. My view is that it should be deleted as failing the key policy WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Dre (producer). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Trunk[edit]

Non-notable album, claims to have been cancelled. Isn't the subject of any reliable sources.

Also listing two singles from the same:

Be Somebody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Various sources [4] [5] confirm that the album did exist at one point, but―as the articles date from 2006—the album is most likely canceled. As such, a merge to Dre (producer) should be sufficient--TBC !?! 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge There were three singles on an established label, but an aborted album does not meet notability standards for a stand alone article. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dre (producer). None of the singles charted and the (minimal) media coverage verifies that the album was planned, not much more. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:NFF. This film was stopped in 1998 due to lack of funding and has never gotten off the ground, if I'm reading the sources correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marudha Nayagam[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate per nom. MixItUp 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half of the two-paragraph article is unsourced.Vice regent 14:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film started shooting. At most, it is a delayed film. There are several cancelled films lingering in Wikipedia. Universal Hero (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge to Hassan's page might be in order then? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not work here. There is no proof the film has progressed in any way. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Ziv[edit]

This article is about an author whose sole claim to notability is the authorship of a book that is itself not notable. It is essentially unreferenced (as of this moment it references only a YouTube link and the book itself) and has no information about the author itself. This lack alone might not be enough to get the article deleted, but it appears that biographical information (or even details about the book itself) are hard to come by from a secondary source. Avruch^T 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two references to the author at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alon+Ziv%22++site%3Aucla.edu , but neither is very helpful. There are other potentially notable people with the same name. --Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was the same problem I encountered. Avruch^T 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Based on the current article, the assertion of notability is that he is the author of the book Breeding Between the Lines. Searching for his name and the book together on Google news shows some mention in the press. Unfortunately, they are behind pay walls, and based on the little information attainable from the summary snippets, it appears that the articles mention him, or use him for a quote but aren't actually about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Published in 2006, yet only 24 US/Canada libraries are listed in worldcat as owning, so it is not conceivably an important book, and it's his only claim to notability. DGG (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable author of a non-notable book. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to lack of references in reliable independent publications. Fram (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Williamson[edit]

Very nicely written article that seems to reveal a lack of notability in the subject matter. Apart from #6, references are either self-referencing or don't substantiate anything. Possible COI previously noted. ~~Creator~~ Another editor removed prod so seeking wider opinion. tomasz. 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn indie band, unles "performed internationally" can be verified, or some kind of discography from a label per WP:MUSIC. MrPrada (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used the library resources at the University of Calgary to bring some clarity to this issue. i also retrieved documents from some of the last six month's local news publications and such. one of my collegues was even able to find an article about performances he did in perth and up north. i also completely changed the article and removed most of user:Soundgallery's editorial language. Journo666 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if that other editor didn't add credibility and notability to the article, I would have argued to keep it, simply due to the fact that the musician is definitely well known, notable, and has performed in both Perth, Western Australia and in Tamarindo Beach, Costa Rica. But now, given the plethora of third-party sources, journo666's copy editing, and the article's current clarity, I urge that this article be kept. Further information will, no doubt, be added one it becomes available. Thanks to Journo666 for his tremendous contribution. I will add more as soon as I can. Regarding the COI concern, I already mentioned that I am not affiliated with the band or any of its members. I'm merely an art student that appreciates good music and journalistic rigour. Soundgallery (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Soundgallery (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Sorry, I know there was a lot of work involved in gathering these references, but I simply don't get any of them, at all. Not a single one establishes notability to me so far. Two of them shows that he has contributed to a few publications which is not significant. This one is a trivial mention of some sort. [6]. Four are self-published refs, .i.e artist's own website. The rest of them, don't link to anything. Is there a reason for that? I don't doubt that those refs exist - but I don't know what they say, if they speak of this subject directly and at length? Are they just trivial mentions? Is there any way to link any of them? And it is noted that this artist is part of the band Sound Gallery. Is there anything to show notability of this band? As of right now, I cannot form an opinion that notability has been established. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: Artist is not listed at AMG and the article really needs some WP:NPOV cleanup. Also:

His solo work stands out, as its contents are performed almost exclusively by him, illustrating his abilities as a multi-instrumentalist.[1][2] Is this a quote from both references?

After he released his first two albums, he toured Australia with mixed reviews.[6] He played two seperate performances, one in Perth, Western Australia and another outside Yulara, Northern Territory. I don't really think two performances constitute a "tour".

Then, he launched his website featuring his solo works, notes and additional general information.[10][11][12] This is certainly not significant as anyone can launch a website.

He currently performs internationally and within Canada as both a solo musician and as the vocalist and guitarist for Sound Gallery.[13] No evidence that the band is notable and info is from a self-ref. Sound Gallery is expected to conduct a general nationwide Canadian tour during the summer months of 2008 and release their first album during the fall.[14] Apparently the band is not notable yet, but while there is no link to the ref, it does assert a tour schedule. Maybe bring the article back after the fact - and then notability would be established per WP:Music.

♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here, all things considered, is a person who isn't quite notable yet, but is pretty much sitting right on the cusp. I'm fully prepared to eat my hat if he hasn't gotten himself playlisted on CBC Radio 3 by the end of 2008, for example. Seriously, just about all that needs to happen here is for someone to nominate him as an R3-30 Chartbreaker — that would literally cover off the one single, solitary thing still holding me back from !voting to keep here. Move into userspace as a subpage (either Soundgallery's or mine) that can be moved back into article space if and when — and I'm quite confident that it's a matter of when rather than if — he's cleared the last couple of hurdles. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the editors expressing concern about Soundgallery's potential COI here. Still, I would like to comment, since I have put some work into searching for sources for this article. I have found nothing about Williamson or his band in databases that carry articles from such publications as the Calgary Herald, Exclaim!, and Chart. I have the same concerns about the article's references that Cricket02 notes above. Furthermore, it seems to me that the references that might be most likely to carry non-trivial coverage are Ambus Rock Review and Jive Magazine (Calgary), and I have not been able to find any Internet presence of these magazines (see this search for example), or mention of them in other media. (I did find that Ambus Registry Inc. is a telemarketing firm in Calgary that was investigated for deceptive practices.) Sorry but I have to say delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Given the plethora of information our friendly wikipedia veterans have dug up, and after having heard their various arguments, I tend to agree most with Bearcat. I suggest we move the page to Soundgallery's user page until the band gains the need notoriety. Having done as much research about these guys as I have, I'm honoured that everyone's spent as much time as I have helping to expand and scrutinize the article. Once we have more concrete validation, I will be more than happy to extend my pen toward furthering Mr. Williamson's article. And, always in the nature of full disclosure, I would like to admit that I can't wait to hear the band. Their website is nothing more than a title page. I am eager.Journo666 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Discussion Moved From Article's Talk Page

responded to author bias i posted a response to this concern here accordingly, I have have removed the COI tag.

Additionally, I intend to add more content as soon as I find the time. Further expansion is definitely required. If anyone finds the time, perhaps they could copy edit this to make the language more encyclopedic. Otherwise, I'll do it when I get the opportunity. Soundgallery (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps If anyone can find more info out about the band, I'd really appreciate a booster. I can't find much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundgallery (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Bias just because the author of the article's name is same as the guys band or whatever, doesn't necessarily imply a bias; it could just be someone who decided to that they'd like it as their username...methinks this requires some confirmation from the user himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.99.2 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Page Deletion (February 24th, 2008)

Third party sources offering validity, notoriety, and encyclopedic significance have been added to address the concerns of Wiki moderators. I hereby contest any and all proposals for deletion, given the article's importance and factual reliability.

user:Soundgallery

Oh...also, I wanted to add that the research for this beast took FOREVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundgallery (talk • contribs) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Curto[edit]

Non-notable. CSD tag removed by author. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also replaced the tag if that's alright. -WarthogDemon 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Community-college instructor and freelance photographer. I see neither the academic achievements that would pass WP:PROF nor the artistic achievements (major awards, reviews, exhibits in important museums and galleries) that would pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can be found sorting through google[7]. The problem is the hits are from instances of him being an authority on photography. Not enough reference to him being the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable so fall short of WP:BIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Zeller[edit]

High school athletes. Scant information, none seem to meet WP:BIO. Merged after the nominator realized he had no freaking clue how to merge afd entries. -WarthogDemon 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Could someone merge Elliot Williams? I can't figure out how to link this article on that page. -WarthogDemon 22:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.why did you nominate this entry? Zeller will be a player for UNC basketball next season, he's definitely a worthy entry. He is one of the elite 25 high school basketball players in America. The #4 power forward in the 2008 high school class and a McDonald's All-American.DP08 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginally notable, but I think it fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing HS ball is not notable, regardless of a person's individual skill. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable high school athlete. --Russ (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though leave the option to recreate the article if Zeller does manage to gain notability as a UNC basketball player in the future.--TBC !?! 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All save the last one have enough notability coverage for me. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Toys, No Boys 2[edit]

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MOVIE. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable porno flick, fails WP:MOVIE. Everyone involved with it is a red link, and the director is a red link too. (I like linking to red link.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above Beeblbrox (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Aaliyah second compilation album[edit]

No title, no release date, no track list ... pure crystal Kww (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info exists about the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, clearly just speculation. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Summit Publishers[edit]

The article is made solely of disparaging comments regarding the subject. It clearly fails WP:NPOV and constitutes an attack page. The prod was removed so I am taking it to AfD even though the person removing the tag refused to state why, and is the one adding only negative material of the subject [8]. N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer my own comments above. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually the article was created by a Washington Summit Publishers supporter. Adding criticisms is no reason for deletion. Notable publisher for the far right as seen by the Southern Poverty Law Center comments and hate group listing.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created as [9], however it has since become an attack page with only attacking comments including "... lists WSP as a White Nationalist Hate Group" and as noted you are the sole person adding content, content which is only attacking and disparaging the subject against WP:NPOV and rules regarding attack pages. Do you plan to balance the article to make it not a violation of WP:NPOV, or are we simply to leave an attack article in place since the SPL commented on them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced criticisms is not a reason for deletion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page is sourced criticism, hence it is an attack page. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. There are numerous trivial and/or non-independent sources showing that this is a significant publisher in its niche, but the only in-depth sources seem to be critical ones, posing heavy undue weight constraints. It may be possible to address these using the existing sources to rewrite the article in a more balanced fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would hope the article can be re-created in a neutral manner. However the only content is in disparaging and the person adding such information has no intention to balance it, as the content of this article is fall out over a disagreement on another article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not an equal space policy requiring that everything must have just equal amounts of support and criticism. Some things (like far right organizations) usually have received more criticisms than support. However, if you have any supporting sources, then please add them.Ultramarine (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)" We also have rules regarding attack pages, sourced attack pages are still attack pages. For example it would be easy to find sources stating negative things about a famous person, such as Paris Hilton, however if the only content on such page was attacking her, that would be an attack page. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is a quite different policy for living persons. Again, NPOV is not an equal space policy. From the WP:NPOV/FAQ: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."Ultramarine (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in NPOV articles whose content is disparaging to the subject is not permitted, you still have not refuted this article falls under that criteria. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that 'disparaging' can really be applied to very much of the article at all. Which specific statements are you referring to? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some of the content may need to be rewritten, I see no grounds for deletion of the page. If an editor finds there is an undue weight given to one side, he/she should add sourced material to correct the weight, not try to remove sourced criticism because very few people have said something positive about the subject. Should criticism about Adolf Hitler be removed to make that article more neutral?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read the article on Hitler you would see it is not solely composed of a criticism section, so it is following our guidelines on attack pages and NPOV. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the article on Washington Summit Publishers isn't solely composed of criticism.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its a 12:1 ratio. With the 1 being 1 sentence not of criticism and 2 paragraphs of criticism. In a month we will just revisit think again. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, NPOV is not a valid reason to have a page deleted. And I would suggest you don't renominate this page after only one month. Renominating until you get the desired outcome is strongly frowned upon here at WP.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So is assuming good faith. I will be renominating it in a month after the contents do not change and noone attempts to fix the issue, therefore showing it is an attack page and since it is not changing the page cannot exist forever as an attack page. NPOV is not a reason to delete because the content can be balance in time, or so it is believed, when the content has not changed in a month, people will see it was created so Ultramarine had some place to put the accusations he wanted to include in the book article, the same ones you are attempting to put. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think the article is unbalanced, and you object to that, then you should edit it to provide the balance. Why do you expect other people to do that for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The business would seem to meet the general notability guidelines; it has indeed been noticed by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The fact that most of those sources are hostile is to be expected, given the sort of material they publish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page violates NPOV, but article deletion is not the proper remedy. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor googling establishes notability. The article needs to be beefed out with more detail about what they do publish (and other businessy stuff) but the negative material seems well documented. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, this appears to be a Speedy Keep. There is no contention that the subject of the article does not meet WP:N; while there does not seem to be evidence to support the claim that the article "is made solely of disparaging comments" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIY Framework[edit]

No RS coverage and ghits are primarily forums and how tos. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about a non-notable software that lacks independent, reliable sources. Much of the article sounds like an ad, like this section: The idea behind it is not to reinvent the wheel but instead to combine existing and proven technologies in a convenient and effective way. It's a no-frills framework: no scaffolding, routing.--TBC !?! 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; concur - and it looks like TBC got to it before I did. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Landmines[edit]

Non-notable drinking game. Violates WP:MADEUP, WP:V, and WP:N. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be composed entirely of original research. Not notable, in my opinion. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google and came up with nothing. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was. Merge Seeing as in 4 years, the article has not been contributed to significantly beyond the original author, and the original author, Lovelac7, here says merge, I think we've got a merge on our hands! (I'm close this as merge but I will not be merging. Have at it.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dugba[edit]

Article about staff position within Michigan State Student Government. Fails WP:Notability and WP:OR. --RedShiftPA (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Associated Students of Michigan State University. I wrote this article almost four years ago, and I can't believe it's lasted this long. In hindsight, I have to say that it's not notable enough to merit its own article. Lovelac 7 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information, failing that delete. The position in and of itself is not notable. Montco (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close as the prior nomination was less than one month ago. Bring the prior discussion to deletion review if you feel the previous consensus was closed wrongly by the admin. (i have no opinion on that). No prejudice against a renomination at a later date, its just to soon and feels very much like "keep on nominating until the results are satisfactory". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ross (media executive)[edit]

This article was nominated before, got keep and then got prodded again. So I am putting it here for reconsideration, no opinion from me. Tone 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as businessman; might be as (so far unreferenced) off-shore racer. Pending that, delete Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy businessman but no particularly notable achievements. Any successful business person will build up a collection of press cuttings. The 'personal life' claims might be enough but they are unsourced. 19:14, 4 March 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 speedy delete. - Revolving Bugbear 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boating World[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a magazine published by a redlink, no indication of its importance or significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. CSD A7, article on an amateur publication that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. CSD A3 also applies, as it's a one sentence article without any substantial content and a red link. Has been tagged as such.--TBC !?! 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per either of the above reasons (it's tagged for both). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest airports in the South Slavic countries[edit]

I find the idea of a list of the airports based on a language highly exotic. Besides, the article is poorly referenced and of suspicious accuracy. For example, it is hard to believe taht there is no airport between Banja luka and Gorna Oryahovitsa, according to the number of passengers. This article basically qualifies as indiscriminate collection of information. Tone 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its certainly an indiscriminate collection of information like the nom said, but its also original research too Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as indiscriminate. Might as well be a "List of the largest airports in countries beginning with S". PC78 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LISTCRUFT <eleland/talkedits> 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO How could you delete it and say that the infomation in not good. The reason there is no airport betwwen Banja Luka and Gorna Oryahovitsa is because these countries are not as developed as all the western countries so it wouldnt have as much airports and secondly we are still in the porosse of coloecting all the infomation. It is very hard to the the passangers for the year unless you go to that airport and ask them what it was. Also what is the difference between this artical and the liest of lagest airports in nordic countries??? Why isnt that going to be deletded??? We made it South Slavic because those countries all have stuff in commen. LIKE THE LANGUAGE AND THE CULTURS! get over it alrite!

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fouse[edit]

Apart from an apparently official website, I can't find any significant coverage for this device, which would be unusual for a notable computer gadget. I'm therefore nominating for deletion on grounds of non-notability. This had been proposed for deletion, but was contested by an IP editor. Sturm 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An advertisement and a neologism for an obscure product with a lack of independent, reliable sources. --TBC !?! 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the comment from the article talk page says it all, This is not being offered as a commercial product (it is a prototyped device). As for the name, that is the name given to the device. It is new and there isn't much written on it. If that's not enough to keep it up then delete it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been "in the middle of an expansion or major revamping" since it was created almost a week ago, and that creation was the author's only edit besides creating his own userpage. I tried looking for sources on this, but the name makes google searching problematic. Anyway, no reliable sources, no proof of notability, and I'm not convinced it even exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom who has worked to look for potential sources. None found, none in article. No response by article authors here or to the article, which i'd take as a plea of no contest. Qwfp (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, nom's issue has been taken to RfD. Any concerns about the notability of Chris Folino may be brought up in a new AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folino[edit]

Only exists as redirect to article on nn filmmaker Chris Folino; COI concerns raised about creator's edit history. Whoville (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure Chris Folino is notable. Why don't you nominate Chris Folino for deletion rather than the redirect? If Chris Folino is notable, then this redirect should stay. If Chris Folino is found to be non-notable, then this redirect will be automatically deleted anyway. Dgf32 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reminder, this belongs at WP:RFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Take it to RFD instead. If you think that Chris Folino is non-notable, then take his article here to AfD, not the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Didn't realize there was a separate process for redirects. Whoville (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all three. Fram (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Concert (Trace Adkins album)[edit]

Okay, I admit, I probably shouldn't have made this page. This is just a live album that Trace Adkins cut at some point; although Trace is very notable, this album doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources at all. Yes, I realize that 99% of albums released by notable artists are notable as well; however, the lack of coverage here has me believing that this album falls into that other 1%. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing another live album page I made, for the same reason as above:

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)} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, while I commend your superb taste in music, the only RS coverage (Trace and Joe) I find is announcements of the albums. No reviews, no critiques. Don't appear notable, although they were great song collections, from my perspective :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If these albums should be deleted, so too should Live in Concert (Mark Chesnutt album). Eric444 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment Don't seem notable, per Eric444's comment above I've also listed the Mark Chesnutt CD, which is the same album. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Eric444 and Caldorwards4. By the way, I suppose I could have {{db-author}}ed these; however, I thought a discussion was in order first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, nobody cares including the creator of one of the articles. Paddy Simcox (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Base Encoding[edit]

Lacks context, not written in an encyclopedic tone, appears to be a personal essay, hasn't been edited in several days, may consist of original research/synthesis of published material, references do not work, and needs attention from an expert on the subject. I'd say that all of that adds up to a valid reason for putting this to AfD. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple of sources that mention "2-base encoding" but this needs attention from someone knowledgable in the subject area. [10] [11]--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep It's only been there 11 days. A bit soon to be deleting it because it "hasn't been edited in several days". Same nom also nominated it less than a week ago, only 2 days after it was created. That seems rather extreme. It may still turn out to be rubbish, but let's give it a fair shake. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that's a completely invalid reason to leave a poor quality article that may fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the main namespace. Also, the tag on the page explicitly states "Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days". It's been five since the last edit.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but beg to differ. I always think it a shame to delete any article that is on a notable subject, however bad it is. If it does not improve in a week or two, then it can always be stripped down to a stub. 2 base encoding is notable per [12][13][14][15][16] etc.Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup and no reason for not having an article on this topic has been given. --Itub (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the text needs some work but its a notable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It needs a couple of changes but the content is fair and accurately describes the newest emerging technology in genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaplin85 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Move - The title of this article refers to a particular technique for sequencing by ligation -- I think this belongs within the sequencing by ligation article (oh, look, there's already a subsection on it there). A large part of the material here is actually unrelated to "2 base encoding" -- steps 1-4 are unrelated to sequencing by ligation and instead refer to the techniques used before the sequencing stage to amplify clonal molecules. I've already created a red link to emulsion PCR within the DNA sequencing article, you might consider creating this article with some of this content. This way, instead of describing ABI's particular technique for sequencing, you will have encyclopedia describing some general techniques use (sequencing by ligation, emulsion PCR). But because of conflict of interest reasons, I'll try to refrain from touching these articles. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable topic, and can be polished nicely. – Clockwork Soul 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current status is acceptable. Any possible merge can be worked out on the talk page. There is no reason not to have expanded articles dealing in appropriate referenced detail with the important techniques, but the specialists need to distinguish that from having an article on every new thing that is published. DGG (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case where the subject is notable and encyclopedic, but the article itself needs work. And this is not the appropriate venue for cleanup. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete-style. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-style[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable subject. Not appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedia. Dgf32 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a game guide and an obscure Smash Bros neologism.--TBC !?! 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chorye Spoone[edit]

The article's subject is not notable. He's a minor-league baseball player, playing in the minors 2005-2007, never played in any major league. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable athlete. Dgf32 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable athlete. Fails WP:BIO - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. After checking the arguments and their validity, the delete opinion is clearly the strongest. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Persaud[edit]

Nonnotable person. All of the references and external links appear to be self-published sources that do not establish notability (I did not check them). Author KawalP has not written anything else on wiki, so he may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author's talk page shows that this article was previously tagged for speedy deletion and later for PROD. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Dgf32 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Shalom claims, all three of the references are third party creations. Shalom admits that he/she did not check the references or external links. Also,the statement that because someone has not written more than one article on a website constitutes a conflict of interest escapes me. This statement is illogical.

Self-published works in themselves are not indicative of non-notability. Some of the best books I have read have been self-published works.

I thought that once a deletion notice has been removed from an article or page, it should not be reinstated.

(KawalP (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. After looking at all of the links/references, I have to say that I don't believe the person meets the basic notability requirements. The majority of the links are either self-published or are fan-type sites hosted on free-space web URLs. It would be nice to have something non-Internet based that could establish the person's notability, but I don't think that would be forthcoming because I don't think he is notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy does not qualify as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then countless entries that exist in Wikipedia should be removed. I have looked at what Shalom and Good Olfactory have written, including Good Olfactory's talk page and get the troubling feeling that these individuals are anti-Christian. Good Olfactory especially, seems to suffer from a complex in this regard. Just read his/her comments and arguments. (KawalP (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? This is nothing to do with anyone being "anti"-anything, and there's nothing on my talk page that should suggest to you I am "anti-Christian". This is a normal procedure that takes place in WP for scores of articles each day, regardless of their subject. For your other argument, see WP:WAX. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this page not proposed for deletion already, and such deletion opposed? Do Wikipedia rules not say that if the proposed deletion of a page is objected to and subsequently removed that the page should not be proposed for deletion again? Are we transgressing convention here? Are we being selective as to which articles should be approved and which should not be, based on the idiosyncrasies of biased individuals like Good Olfactory and his/her likes? (Cperlobo (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think you're confusing two different procedures. There is WP:PROD and WP:AFD. If a user opposes the proposal under WP:PROD, then the proposal usually goes on to this more formal stage, which is WP:AFD. Again, I'd encourage you to tone down the personalization of this issue and keep personal attacks out of it — anyway, I didn't nominate the article for deletion either under PROD or AFD. (I assume User:Cperlobo is the same as User:KawaIP, here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cperlobo & KawalP are two different individuals. I ask the owners and administrators of Wikipedia to do their best to mainatin the high standards of their encyclopedia. I ask that they do not allow ultra-liberals and anti-religionists to bastardize a noble venture.

(Cperlobo (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have looked at Good Olfactory's talk page and while some of his comments (not necessarily about the issue at hand) are not without merit, I do detect a measure of prejudice in his statements. Also, he seems to be somewhat judgmental.

(Juno200 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Juno200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. All the books are published through print-on-demand publishers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that Wikipedia administrators carefully consider the facts appertaining to this case before making a decision as to whether or not to delete the article. I remind them of the following:

1. Notability is a relative term and not because an author is self-published does it mean that his work is substandard. Increasingly, the trend in book publishing is toward print-on-demand publishing. Many excellent writers have no other recourse, mainly because of financial constraints.

2. The author in question is from Guyana, South America, and the concept of relative importance or notability is brought to the fore. Guyana is a small country on the South American continent and few writers, authors and poets emerge from this third-world country. A Guyanese, by just being a published author in the USA, accomplishes a certain measure of notability.

3. I have seen many Wikipedia pages and articles. Less notable people than Christopher Persaud have had pages written about them and have had such pages remain in the encyclopedia.

4. Lastly, I sincerely hope, contrary to what I sometimes read and hear, that Wikipedia really offers everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, a forum to participate freely in producing informative, truthful information for the world at large to see.

In closing, while I stand fully behind my arguments that have been provided in objecting to the deletion of Christopher Persaud, if my language in some instances was somewhat uncivil, I apologize to all who might have been offended.

(KawalP (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply 1. Notability as used in the wikipedia sense refers to the notablity guidelines. That he has chosen to self-publish doesn't necessarily mean that he is not notable, but the preponderance of self-published authors are not notable. Reliables sources to attest to notbility would overcome this. 2. Thta he is from Guyana is irrelevant. Guyana does produce notable authors such as Mark McWatt who have won literary prizes for their work. And as for being published in the US being notable, how does that square up with the fact that the works are self-published? 3. Other articles in wikipedia are irrlevant in considering the merits of this article. 4. I don't know what you are hearing but this is an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poetry is significant and not self-published. The award is real, and many academic poets list it in the CVs. Since he's notable as a poet, the religious publications also--which would by themselves not make him notable--can be included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cadets (uk band)[edit]

Article has been around since May 2007, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, absolutely no assertation of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete not notable --Step hen 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered[edit]

While a search on 'Delivered' and literary is nearly impossible for obvious reasons, 12 ghits for the parent company reveal no notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur publication. Dgf32 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article on an amateur publication that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.--TBC !?! 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Should actually be tagged as A7 for speedy delete. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please read WP:CSD, Books, magazines, etc . cannot be speedied for lack of notability. They must go either here, or to prod. No comment on the actual notability.DGG (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake; haven't been here in a while. You're right, CSD A7 only applies to people and organizations.--TBC !?! 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeeMix[edit]

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case, I think the references are enough to demonstrate notability. It sounds interesting, too. --Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. It may be interesting, but it ain't notable yet. External links to online press releases ain't reliable sources! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found this from Fox Business about one of their new releases and there seems to be a lot of buzz but I don't think it meets WP:WEB just yet. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Of the references cited, only the interview might count towards notability, and is still a bit dubious. TechCrunch is a blog. And The only stuff I could find are press releases. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough here to meet WP:WEB. TerriersFan (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable fictional plant --Step hen 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild fresney[edit]

Minor in-universe entity; article will never be reasonably expanded or properly sourced (contested prod) Matchups (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional plant. Dgf32 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per copyvio. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DPRG[edit]

"Aims at becoming an acknowledged..." No evidence that it's happened yet and none of the 12 ghits assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a scientific research lab at a university, but I don't see anything to suggest that it is notable. Dgf32 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://dprg.geomatics.ucalgary.ca/ -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all 7. Fram (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCatcher Entertainment[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

Gustaf K. Bissell
Nicklas Sternegård
Bob Wallace (producer)
Experimentet
Captive (film)
Experimentet 2

Non-notable film company. Sole claim to fame is an award they won at a Swedish film festival for their 2006 release, Captive. However, the article on the film festival where they won their award was created by the same editor who created the articles on the company, making it highly suspect in my mind. In addition, the only film that has won an award at said festival which has an article on Wikipedia is Captive.

With that said, the only relevant ghits are for Youtube, Myspace, IMDB, Wikipedia, and their official web site. No news coverage I can find. No secondary sources. No reason to believe this company, its films, and the people associated with it are in any way notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MOVIE, WP:CORP. Redfarmer (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all. Only references are from user driven sites (ie Youtube, IMDB). As nom mentioned, no independent, reliable new sources to verify the group's notability. Looks like a clear cut case.--TBC !?! 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third party coverage. -Nv8200p talk 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly this article needs more work, otherwise I suspect it will come back here.Bduke (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports[edit]

Page is nothing more than a poor list with common sense facts, like 2003 was year#4 of fantasy baseball, and other than the poor list page only contains external links. I find it to be a useless page for Wikipedia. UWMSports (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports seems to be a notable part of Yahoo!, and it's been covered by at least a few reliable sources which are cited in the article. Suggest using a {{cleanup}} tag (or similar tag) instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of I don't like it. The page is useless. You are telling me that list is useful? -UWMSports (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site in question has had some significant news coverage, and at least a couple of the sources in the article itself are legit. Therefore, the subject is most likely notable, even if the page is mostly a big list right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It looks quite a bit like WP:SPAM at the moment (free site, pay site etc.) but that does not mean it can not be fixed. I will reserve judgement for the time being. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As TPH points out above, this page has received plenty of mainstream major coverage as one of the biggest fantasy sports pages around - anything that pulls in 5.1 million views in a month, as is quoted in this feature on TheStreet.com, is probably quite notable under our WP:WEB guidelines. I see articles specifically about this from a good number of sources. Having said that, none of those sources are in the article, which has been built from press releases and blogs. Notability says Keep, but cleanup is desperately needed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At its current state, I think it could be merged into a subsection under Yahoo. How about giving its main creators a week or so to clean it up or have it merged? It has some relevant sources, but they don't give all that much. -UWMSports (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposal is new. They have at least as much time as it takes to close it. Several days at the least the way it looks like it is going right now. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think this is very informative, and I put alot of hard work finding sources. Also worth noting this person UWMSports has been editing for some reason articles I created for quite the span.. Drake Bulldogs basketball and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports for example. I edit, just thought that was also interesting. Special:Contributions/UWMSports --Josh (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only other article was Drake, and I happen to like that one alot. I just added an expansion tag for a one sentence preseason section. Yahoo needs significant work. I'll help you with it if need be. I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion. I don't have a personal vandetta against you. -UWMSports (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion." That is not the purpose of AFD. Our deletion process is not here to resolve content disputes or draw attention to low-quality articles. If you don't actually advocate deleting this article, I suggest you may want to withdraw this nomination. (I don't say this because I'm gung-ho about keeping the article, though I do think it's a notable subject.) szyslak 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (numerous edit conflicts). I protested a prod on the article and I appreciate how User:UWMSports notified me about this AfD. I spent time cleaning up the "Key dates" section which had way too much information about each time a new season of a given fantasy sport started. There were many for fantasy football. I expanded the lead paragraph from several RS to include some statistics about Yahoo!'s large market share of the total fantasy sports market. The article could certainly use expansion especially about its pay service. It's hard to write about pay services without it sounding like promotion. The article should be kept because there are now statistics to show its notability and there are multiple reliable sources. I hope that others are encouraged by seeing this discussion to expand the article! Royalbroil 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

change to Merge/Redirect to Yahoo! Sports. Limited content after spending enough time looking. Royalbroil 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - but only if it is cleaned up, and the cruft deleted. (The "Key Dates" section, for example, is of no encyclopedic value.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had cleaned up the section, but User:SportsMasterESPN/Josh reverted them and actually expanded that too long section. I left a message on his talk page about the problem. Royalbroil 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been totally incoherent to my comments and apparently others as well. He is intent on simply reverting all constructive edits. See User_talk:SportsMasterESPN. I'm willing to drop this suggestion for deletion and help him form a good Yahoo Fantasy page if he is willing. But unfortunately, he has not replied and simply reverted all edits. -UWMSports (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I advocate for that section to include only the start dates for each program and an end date for any obsolete programs. For example, Fantasy Football's start date be listed as August 1998 with no other start dates for Fantasy Football - the start date for each year should be removed. A table listing each program and its start/end dates might be a better way to do what I'm suggesting. Royalbroil 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but clean up. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in line with similar opinions above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Note that Yahoo! Fantasy Sports isn't a separate Yahoo site like Yahoo! Answers or Yahoo! Finance; rather it's just a section of Yahoo! Sports. As such, a merge would be more appropriate.--TBC !?! 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Belongs as a brief section under the Yahoo! article, because I don't think there is enough info to make anything more than a stub. I think the SportsMaster user needs to be cooperative in this effort otherwise I would go with deletion. Look at his history of reverts. -FancyMustard (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like an advertisement for Yahoo Fantasy. All the page is is links to different fantasy games, including ones you have to pay for. Seems very commercial to me. I'd say ax the page and make a quick mention of the Fantasy in the Yahoo page. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pete for pointing out the Yahoo Sports page, I say merge fantasy sports with sports. Both pages need alot of work and putting them together will help them out alot. -UWMSports (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services, and then redirect. No need for its own (lengthy) article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very commercial, looks almost like spam. Udonknome (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The article reads like an advertisement for the subject. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like merging is the current majority. Even Royalbroil, who has been very close to the situation has changed his thoughts from keep to merge after realizing there isn't enough to make a Yahoo Fantasy article look more than an advertisement. Those above who also said keep, said that on the condition that the article be cleaned up. The only strong keep was from the article writer, so he might have a COI. I think we should wrap this discussion up and merge Yahoo! Fantasy Sports into Yahoo! Sports. This will eliminate an entire page of advertising to Yahoo Fantasy, but keep the core history of its fantasy leagues within the general sports article. I think we can wrap the deletion discussion up me thinks! -UWMSports (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this article has some serious issues, but I still see absolutely no consensus. Strong keep, week keep, reluctant keep: they are all still keeps. That is also ignoring the deletes. Please try to be patient, if there is no concensus this will need people working to fix it. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tierney[edit]

Someone who publishes short stories on his website, and has allegedly sold some to magazines. I found no evidence that he has authored a published book, or that his stories have been anthologized in one. I found no mentions of him even in local media. This is a vanity article; the sole source which might indicate notability is a dead-link to a conference website which lists "famous Londoners," but it uses exactly the same phrasing Wikipedia's article on London, Ontario does, and in all probability it happened to scrape that page before someone caught it. <eleland/talkedits> 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence exists that he's written for notable magazines or anthologies; hardly any sources could be found to prove he even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yopie 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete Delete per nom. Non-notable subject. Dgf32 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly per nom. Completely not notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was derail. Oops, I mean delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagus and Rockwood Railroad[edit]

Appears to be an entirely non-notable model railroad. Article created by the railroad model's creator. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the reliable sources test, just a non-notable model railroad. (Bonus joke: How do you spell "railroad crossing" with only three letters? R-X-R!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yopie 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete' this shows no assertion of notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete speculation --Step hen 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls Live In London[edit]

This page is purely speculative. There have been no official sources saying that this show would be released on DVD, not to mention the lack of news regarding ANY DVD release. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom, although could have been speedied. Queerbubbles (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; too soon to have any verifiable info. And to the above user: What speedy category would it fit in? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the magic eight ball says no information available. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh Everyone knows that the Spice Girls live in London. Or at least, they live somewhere close by. Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Live as in a live concert! Queerbubbles (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Never mind. Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a future album, so it fail WP:CRYSTAL. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not linked from the article page between 23:47 Feb 27 and 10:42 Feb 28. Fixed now. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 10:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Vice regent 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not linked from the article page between 22:12 Mar 01 and 12:48 Mar 03. Fixed now. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon times[edit]

This website article is unreferenced and does not assert notability per WP:WEB. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs work but it's only a day old. It is a valid site and a notable religion, I hope the AfD notice gets the authors to step up to the plate.Padillah (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Valid =/= "notable". --Calton | Talk 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My argument was more toward the non-hoax/"has a chance to improve" area. The question remains, will it improve? Padillah (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's got references on the bottom, Mormonism is a notable / valid religion in the USA (I'm not but----freedom of religion and all that..) AFD rationale is not supported by the articleWe don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers Crossed - hi, I'm the author of this article... it's my VERY FIRST attempt at a Wikipedia entry. I'd REALLY appreciate any tips on getting things up to spec.Goslinjoe —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending a possible rewrite. As it stands, this page doesn't assert any notability for the site, and all of the refs are either primary sources or other Wikipedia pages. The only other references I could find were blogs pertaining to Mormonism. I say weak delete only because of the article's age. To the author: Please read WP:RS; I would recommend searching for reliable, third-party sources, and NOT using other Wikipedia pages as a citation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting There - (from the author) I read the Reliable Sources guide (thank you TenPoundHammer), and I've been updating my article accordingly. More to come, naturally. Thanks for your help with this. Goslinjoe (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Let's keep it for now. The author just started the article today. Let's give the editor some time to improve it. We can always revisit the subject later to assess notability once he's had some time to work on it. Dgf32 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dgf32. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dgf32, I too believe that an Article should be around for more days than I have toes. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no sources to show notability, created by User:----screechconor---- as one of that user's two contributions (the other was adding himself to the list of OBE recipients). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor wilson[edit]

Looks like a long-forgotten hoax. EJF (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a few hits for Conor Wilsons, but nothing that mentions an entertainer by that name, or anything to do with the Queen. Hoax? Likely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no OBE list that mentions any Conner Wilson.Padillah (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radically Disentangled Morphology[edit]

The article is couched in scientific jargon and impressive looking references but when you look deeper nothing actually mentions the term "Radically Disentangled Morphology". Google has nothing for it either. This appears to be either a hoax or original research. Ros0709 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name Halldór Sigurðsson gets a few hits on Google, but "radically disentangled morphology" gets nada. I don't read... whatever language that is (Icelandic?)... so I can't tell if any of the results in that language actually do mention this term's equivalent or not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a term paper of some sort. The references are more about attributing proof to the argument that there is RDM than being about the phenomenon. Padillah (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need a linguist here, STAT, at least as far as evaluating the content of the article. Halldór Sigurðsson is a very common Icelandic name, and many of the first hits are for others of the same name. Searching Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, the full name of the author, brings up better results, including his page as a faculty member at the university in Lund (Sweden) as well as several other linguistics papers not mentioned in the article. Not a term paper, and is peer-reviewed research by a professional in the field, but beyond that, I can't evaluate the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Pending further investigation. It appears genuine. It's mentioned on Page 242 of Non-nominative Subjects By Peri Bhaskararao, Karumuri V. Subbarao ISBN 9027229708. The question of whether syntax precedes or follows morphology in a derivational grammar divides morphological theories into two classes: lexicalist theories assume that morphology precedes syntax; late insertion theories assume the opposite order. This is such a theory, although it's pretty obscure. Maybe too obscure for WP. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, maybe not a hoax, but I'd still Delete it because it's a very specialized, obscure topic. And it reads like chomskybot output. <eleland/talkedits> 09:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. This may or may not be a notable theory - I have no opinion on the matter. The larger problem seems to be that the article is strongly deficient in context, so it fails to enable a general interest reader to figure out what the hypothesis predicts or what competing ideas exist. Were such context provided, I would likely change my opinion; it would seem this is the hypothesis of a credentialled academic. Moreover, if that context were here, we might be able to intelligently point to a more general article in which this paragraph could fit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to morphology (linguistics) and let it sink or swim there by normal wikiprocess. This is too specialised (and presently too brief) for its own article. Morphology (linguistics) provides (at least some of) the necessary context and already has 3 subsections in a section titled Models of morphology. This can be merged as a fourth. We can safely assume (we must assume) that (at least some of) the editors of that page have the knowledge required to decide if it should stay there or disappear entirely. Qwfp (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good solution: merge to Morphology (linguistics) per Qwfp. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Nordfors[edit]

The notability of this subject is quite unclear. No sources are given, and the article has been routinely edited by Mikael Nordfors himself: he has written the bulk of the text and removed a PROD tag. I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues as well -- even though this is written mainly by the subject and therefore not something he would object to, this is fundamentally a poorly sourced article ~~saying some scandalous things~~ about a living person. (edit: The things have been removed; you can look in the history to see what they were.)

As far as I can tell his notability comes from three claims: (1) his book, which the article claims to have been a bestseller, but there's no source and I couldn't verify it. The book is being sold online but seems to be heavily discounted. (2) His conflict with medical authorities over this "anal massage" thing, which is very sparsely covered (and only in Swedish AFAICT, so I couldn't actually verify it). (3) His connection to DemoEx. DemoEx doesn't have an article and I couldn't verify its notability. It seems to be an experimental idea with an extremely low profile. The World Parliament Experiment is also a low-profile organization; the article started by Mikael Nordfors. No independent reliable sources back up any of this claim (and being invited to participate in some conferences, while surely exciting, doesn't make for real notability.) Mango juice^talk 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind if I bundle The World Parliament Experiment into this AfD too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. It isn't that closely linked with Nordfors, and might actually be notable. Suspicious, but at least deserves independent consideration IMO. Mango juice^talk 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that being invited doesn't, in itself, bring notability. Padillah (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. seicer | talk | contribs 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a Demoex article. Thespian Seagull (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Bias[edit]

Appears to be original research. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My thoughts exactly. I just tagged the article with OR and notability templates as they are certainly a concern. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely original research; I can't find any reliable sources that use this term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Umrguy42 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Also, I found nothing for Daryl Clements (except for the basketball player from Detroit). Padillah (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur. Claiming that there is such a thing as the area of Business Excelence (sic) strikes me as a strong indicator that a conflict of interest exists, and that this article is meant to promote a new buzzword for commercial gain. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion dispatches[edit]

Contested speedy. Non-notable website, just created in the past few weeks. No independent sources at all. Only relevant Google hits are for the site itself, the WP article and an assortment of bloggers (several of whom write for this site). Claims to be "the very first secular online magazine devoted to the scholarly analysis of religion for the general reader," a claim I find impossible to uphold or verify. It may be a notable web site someday, but it's not even close today. Possible self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The site does not seem like it can be verified to be notable. Hazillow (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and thus does not assert WP:N, fails WP:NOT#LINK and looks very much like WP:SPAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Dgf32 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three external links, one is the site itself, one is a site founded by the top-billed writer for this site and one is a writeup by a member of the advisory board for this site. 9Nak (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit cognition[edit]

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the fact that the article's reference is an author from (EEK!) Berkeley (J/K!), it does fall (barely) within WP guidelines for inclusion. Another article that needs expansion, not deletion.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article in its present state is original research, based on only one reference, which is an apparently unpublished essay. Even if the writer is from an illustrious college, her interesting paper about cognitive psychology and the history of thought about consciousness is not on its face a reliable source. Evidence is needed that the concept is supported by reliable sources. The term and its definition here do not appear to add materially to related older notions in cognitive psychology. A different article with this title could be written based on some of the published sources available in psychology literature, so there should be no objection to later creation of such an article. Edison (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of implicit cognition is itself notable, and it should have an article on Wikipedia. However, right now the article is poor quality. It is a simple stub with a simple definition. With more information, this could be a good article. I think we should keep the stub for someone to expand it. Dgf32 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's pretty obvious from Google scholar and Google book searches that this is a notable concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's currently a one sentence article stub, its stats include 14,400 ghits and 44 articles/books at WorldCat. The article needs expansion, not deletion; I left a message at WikiProject Psychology in this regard. Coffee4me (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar and Google Book searches above have loads of hits, including a book titled "Implicit Cognition". There seems little doubt that it is a notable concept with plenty of available references. Therefore, since the article as it exists is not harmful in any way, it's a surmountable problem. All this article needs is someone interested in it to come along and do the research with those easily-findable sources. Come on, it's a stub that needs to be expanded. AfD is not cleanup. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now added a direct reference for the definition, and provided two book references for anyone interested in additional editing. As the article stands now, there are sufficient sources mentioned to dispel any notability doubts. We just need a psychology clean-up crew now. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. That's clinched it. A reference to an article of exactly the same name in an academic encyclopedia plus two books with it in the title, all from highly reputable publishers? Stick an {{expand further}} above them and let's close this. Qwfp (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable bio --Step hen 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Mining Law[edit]

Article appears to be primarily a self-written biography of J.M. Otto. Would have suggested moving the page; however, the page is an orphan, with no links to it elsewhere in WP. Not sure therefore that it satisfies WP:N. Additionally, material is exactly the same (barring refs) as that presented on User:JamesMichaelOtto, the page creator. Umrguy42 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as conflict of interest, and lacking in notability. Obviously, he's not the same guy as this guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a CV and the obvious WP:COI means it's not written from a NPOV. Ros0709 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Even were this fellow notable, the article is obviously misnamed. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticaldns[edit]

No RS coverage and ghits show shopping links and zero evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject. Dgf32 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD A7, a one-lined article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and has been tagged as such. Related article LocalMirror has been tagged as well, although with CSD A3, as it's an article with little content consisting mostly of external links and a "see also" section.--TBC !?! 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment didn't know a product could be speedied, good to learn TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a company product, so A7 should apply.--TBC !?! 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plunderer[edit]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable fictional character, no out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll try to fix this one up as best I can. BOZ (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if I'm not successful, though. :) This chacater has been a major antagonist to Ka-Zar, and other Marvel heroes, for 40 years, and is even appearing in comics on the stands even as we speak. Still working on it. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this fails WP:V or WP:RS. Tomdobb (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Light on the non-primary sources still, but evidently a long-running and notable fictional character. I do wonder why the commentator above claimed the character is "unverifiable" -- perhaps he meant "unverified"? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the character is Ka-Zar's brother, and the article will be touched up. It is not going anywhere, and I'll create/write the whole thing from scratch if pulled anyway. Take heart BOZ!

Asgardian (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This character has been a recurring adversary over several decades and has been featured in major publications of a notable comic book publisher. The character's fictional history as it stands now is in keeping with WP:WAF; besides which, WP:FICT is a proposed guideline and does not bear the authority of policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the character has been around for over 40 years. The information in the article can be verified by consulting the comic books he appears in, so AFAIK this article does not violate any policy. --Pixelface (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avanti Construction[edit]

Concerns about notability raised at DRV are sufficient to list. — Coren ^(talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable; a general query results in more Avanti-named companies than "an approach to collaborative working." seicer | talk | contribs 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lingering issues have been corrected. seicer | talk | contribs 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The fact that this project was supported by an arm of the British government might give this some notability, if referenced; it is not. The prose of the article contains some unacceptably vague and evasive text

Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste.

so even if the project is notable, large portions of it would need to be cut. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after extensive edits. The prose still needs a stiff dose of concrete, plain English. The text is still plagued with buzzwords and zippy-sounding but vague phrases like "action research programme", and it still uses "business" generically where "construction industry" seems meant; but it seems reasonably clear that this is a government sponsored standardization initiative. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? "Undeleted and sent to AfD"? This is process wonking bureaucracy at it's best. John Reaves 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, delete...again. John Reaves 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed a speedy deletion that was generally agreed was on flimsy ground so that a proper discussion on the merits of the article could be achieved. Hence the AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Keep if the government thing can be proved. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- now that it is improved--see below. ~~weak keep~~ I found and added some information. Not really as good as desirable, but something. It actually was a cooperative standards group. DGG (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. Dgf32 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing all the issues and concerns:
I have improved this article with a multitude of relevant internal links, to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards, as it needed to be wikified. I have therefore removed the {{wikify}} tag, following the procedure specified in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified.

This article needed sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications, as primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have included more appropriate citations from reliable sources. I have therefore removed the {{primarysources}} tag.

I have rewritten the article and I have addressed all the issues raised by all the administrators (above). I have tried to show its notability and I have given evidence of the need of this project and of how the UK government realised the importance of developing a collaborative approach to the construction industry. The BS 1192, a British Standard, relied heavily on Avanti. You can check this by clicking on http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030163398 (the Avanti logo is there). And BS 5555 also used the Avanti methodology. Reference number 6 shows the government involvement.

I would like to sincerely thank all of you administrators above for your comments and suggestions: I have taken them into deep and serious consideration and I hope I have now matched all the requirements.

I look forward to the outcome of the review/discussion.

Thanking you in anticipation --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the revisions and new sourcing help to demonstrate notability, and they certainly do demonstrate government involvement (something several contributors above mentioned that they'd like to see verified. (And, of course, this can't be a non-notable company, since it isn't a company, but a project. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page still needs a good dose of copyediting (now where did I put those scissors?) but that is an editorial-type question not an AfD matter. Notability as a government sponsored programme has been established by substantial secondary sources so the page meets WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK; I have cleaned up the formatting (removed spurious breaks, put references after the punctuation instead of before etc.) and moved it to a more accurate title (it is described in the official DTI documentation as a programme). As nicely described by Smerdis of Tlön, the prose needs de-jargonning but that will come. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the later edits seem to have addressed the concerns about the article fairly well; I note that while I am the nominator de facto, I have no opinion about keeping the article or not. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am no longer in favor of deleting the article. I was mistaken in my original assessment of the article, thinking it was a constrution firm. Since nomination, the article has been signficantly improved, relocated to a more appropriate namespace. I render no opinion on the notability of the subject, the Avanti Programme, as I don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject area to render an opinion. Dgf32 (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed above to Strong Keep. Excellent good job of editing! DGG (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten, the article has significantly improved to the point where our inclusionary guidelines have been met and exceeded. RFerreira (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well re-written and Cited. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been heavily revised such that the original rationale for deletion is now moot. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee High School[edit]

Coffee High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not meet notability Mjrmtg (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not assert notability (per proposed guidelines). seicer | talk | contribs 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the second Primary Criteria for school notability Adam McCormick (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JNN. Your argument is not valid. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - being a high school "asserts" notability. Having encylopedic sources written about the school "proves" notability. Given the Google News material available, I am confident that this school is notable enough to be kept. (By the way it does meet the proposed school notability guidelines as the criteria it must meet is High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available. - and the material is available. EJF (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ejf plus there are many articles on here that are less notable then this so this goes all of those have to go as wellOo7565 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EJF explanation. Coffee4me (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not present the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument or the WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There is no possibility of simultaneously nominating for deletion several thousand articles which do not meet our guidelines for notability. We only see a hundred or so a day, which really cannot keep up with the ability to create more articles which are vanispamcruftisements. The end result would be a constant lowering of the quality of the average article, as each poor article is used to justify the next poor article. See WP:ORG or the proposed guideline WP:SCL.Edison (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per previous AFD outcomes that have generally found high schools to be notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. A high school is an important institution in its region, and through scholastic or athletic excellence, or even through scandal, it may have statewide or national notability. A Google News search [17] shows several promising news article, most, sadly behind paywall. Some are for a like-named school in Alabama (this one is in Georgia). There are a number of article in major papers about athletics at the school: coaches coming and going, athletes from the school being recruited by colleges, games: Atlanta Journal-Constitution , Dec 28, 1986; Daily Reflector, Nov 21, 2000; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb 3, 1994; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan 23, 1985; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar 30, 1994; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct 9, 1995. Like any high school with much of an athletic program, this one got press coverage. The "internal" sources can be used to supply encyclopedic detail about the school. Edison (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as it fails to show it's notability which it must do per WP:Notability. It cannot be notable just because it's there. That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Subject must assert notability, therefore it must be deleted. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify your signature to resemble your username. Thank-you. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No high school is notable because is high school. Yopie 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep While this discussion is percolating, my recollection is that current policy is to favor articles about high schools as being inherently notable, while middle and elementary schools would have to demonstrate notability beyond educating thousands of people. Even without the baseball player as a notable alumnus, it's got 2,000 students at present and it's the lone public high school in the county. Strangely enough, if you proposed to delete the article about an unincorporated town in the county (say West Green, Georgia), you'd have all sorts of people rushing in to protect the little town as being notable. Why this logic doesn't apply to a high school is beyond me--the people who love names on the map never weigh in on discussions about schools. As an alternative to deletion, this Coffee may need to be poured, perhaps in decaffinated form, into the article about Coffee County, Georgia Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Edison. High schools are almost certainly notable, especially one of this size and being the only one in the county.68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is already imjproved. It's not that High Schools are magically notable. It's the fact that any high school with 2K people per year will be covered by reliable sources and can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article should be improved however to emphasize the nobility of the topic. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not that secondary schools are inherently notable, it's that the collective experience of Wikipedia is that enough coverage can be found for just about every secondary school, to the point that you can presume that any given one is. Yes, it needs sources, but the odds are close enough to one that they can be found when someone gets to it. And per official policy, articles should grow at their own pace. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article as it stands makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources and should be further expanded. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Edison pointed out, sources do exist about this school and its claims to notability are supported by sources. Consensus is generally that high schools do not get deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - All the discussion I've read (and at this point it's in the thousands of school articles) points to high schools always being able to assert notability. Every secondary school gets some kind of press coverage, the vast majority have a few notable alumni. Just because the article is small, does not mean that the school is not notable and when it comes dows to it, we don't delete articles just because they're not good enough for GA status yet. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources available. See GoogleNews for example. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL HIGH SCHOOLS ARE NOTABLE. This one in particular because it makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1998 FIFA World Cup (match reports)[edit]

1998 FIFA World Cup (match reports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Adds nothing to the 1998 FIFA World Cup article. In fact, most of the text in this article is exactly the same as in the Summary section of said main article. – Pee Jay 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John Hayes^talk 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant content fork. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made reduntant by the original article Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AR TYOM 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant from the original article, does not need to exist a second time. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like WP:SNOW probably comes into effect here. – Pee Jay 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow, how did this article slip under the radar for four years. Delete per nom. Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything in article already covered in 1998 FIFA World Cup. TheProf | 2007 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay. Punkmorten (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment was mistakenly left on the talk page of this AfD: ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does 'per nom' mean? Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's short for "as per nominator". It's basically a substitute for writing out the nominator's reasoning over again. – Pee Jay 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gelin[edit]

Martin Gelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Regular contributor" is not notable; a superficial Google provides nothing to set Gelin apart. 9Nak (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N because 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' A quick Google Search on Martin Gelin returns no independent sources (just his own articles and blog posts). Littleteddy (roar!) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: General query results in self-blog posts and web-sites. Pretty much non-notable. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD G12. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Medical Evaluation and Referral[edit]

International Medical Evaluation and Referral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:Spam(Only promotional links and content. Also, fails to establish Notability Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 Almost all the article was lifted from here. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio. Littleteddy (roar!) 15:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable --Step hen 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Fair[edit]

Bradley Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Kansas; a search for sources turned up nothing valuable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go Weak Delete on this one. It is a borderline WP:N failure. It could also be argued that the article fails WP:ORG. Littleteddy (roar!) 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I usually vote in favor of malls, but they are usually either deceased, dying or notable in some fashion. This has no interesting background information to back it up. seicer | talk | contribs 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOOMj[edit]

BOOMj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No establishment of notability. WP:WEB, no awards, no significant coverage by sources independent of the subject. Press releases don't meet that. Crossmr (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I deleted all the unreferenced material in the article weeks ago, and no one else has found any reliable sources. Sems to have been ad/spam. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is such a joke, this is clearly notable. Been in the new york times, top 23,000 on alexa, was featured on nbc, is publicly traded and it was even on forbes tv a while back. all of this is in the old versions of the article but someone keeps deleting stuff from it, prob from a rival site or something. Def not worth deleting in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.195.95.182 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the links then. This is a debate for deletion and claims of notability need to come with reliable citations.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have provided additional information and a verifiable third-party citation. It now barely conforms to WP:ORG.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the IP address above: Don't talk about notability, show it. This is a forum to decide what to do with an article as it stands. If you feel that it is should not be deleted and falls within the guidelines of notability, don't whine about it, find the references and bring it up to standards. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sallicio's sources, seems to just pass notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Alexa ratings does not assert notability. With that said, it has some prominence and weakly passes WP:ORG. seicer | talk | contribs 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-Unit (self-replicator)[edit]

F-Unit (self-replicator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ignore the fact that this article was written by the inventor of the idea. Ignore the fact that at the slightest provocation the inventor descends into endless screeds of irrelevancies and personal attack on talk pages - see special:contributions/Fraberj (and many anon edits). Ignore the fact that the article is long winded and only slightly less incomprehensible than the patent specification it references. Just concentrate on the fact the subject is non-notable. Populus summed it up here very clearly. The device has not been implemented. Only one independent web reference is supplied and that is highly critical. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-written article that does not pass notability; general query results in zilch. No sources, just original research. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree completely that the notability of the subject is highly suspect, and everything RHaworth says is true. I also don't think it would be a loss to see this article deleted. But the decision to create this article was the result a lot of discussion at Talk:Self-replicating machine, where we decided that this is the best course of action. User:Bobprime and I are trying to work with the creator of this material to get it sourced, and demonstrate its notability. It is highly likely that notability will not be established through reliable sourcing. That said, this article was nominated for deletion no more than a day after it was created, and I want to ask that we have more time. If those participants in this discussion agree to give us a chance to demonstrate its notability or lack thereof, I assure everyone that either the problem will be solved or I will renominate this article for deletion within a month. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "It is highly likely that notability will not be established through reliable sourcing." Did you mean that or is the "not" an accident? Assuming you mean it as written, you are admitting that it is non-notable and therefore deserves deletion. As to nomination within one day: a) if an article is patently unsuitable then it matters not how soon you delete it, b) this particular title was only created within the last day but a previous, very similar version was very firmly deleted by this AfD back in 2006 and c) the text has been around since 2007 October in close to its present form with no noticeable improvement. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article should be deleted, I was just using it as a tool to get the content off of Self-replicating machine. Good luck making the delete stick though as Fraberj doesn't really believe that wikipedia policy applies to him, that's the fight I was trying to avoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobprime (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:N. I have found and added refs in a great many AFDs in less than 5 hours and the improved article has been kept. Why is the standard 5 days insufficient for this topic? Edison (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "not" is no accident: from what we've seen it's going to be an uphill battle finding reliable sources, if they exist. Bobprime and I have been wrangling with the writer of the information in this article, trying to draw out sources that would establish notability for the subject. If such sources exist, I think he'd be the only person who'd have them. Honestly, the editor in question has been less than helpful, which is why five days is not enough. But I am not ready to give up yet. Unless, of course, this AFD makes the matter moot, which is highly likely that it will.
One more response to RHaworth: I haven't had since October. I've only been dealing with this article for a week. The reason it's been in such poor shape for so long is because the editor who created it doesn't much appreciate Wikipedia policy. But Bobprime and I do, and we're willing to see if we can't fix it up. I understand it seems strange to be spending so much time on something seemingly marginally important. But I'm already involved in this issue, and I don't like deleting things unless absolutely necessary. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my comments per Bobprime. I'm glad this is going to be over soon. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yow, really not worthy of a month long stay of execution. The normal five days are enough. Without substantial improvement and demonstration that this is an encyclopedic subject that can be written about in an encyclopedic manner, pull the plug. Really, the article adds absolutely no value to wikipedia at all and in fact degrades it. Quale (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a copyvio of [18]. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably the reverse - the HTML header of the geocities page says "Last-Modified: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:37:17 GMT". I think Charles has taken up my suggestion to put it on his own website. (We will overlook the fact that having been so keen to publish it on Wikipedia, he should not withdraw the GFDL licence!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmitigated blather. Or to put it another way. Build it, get the NYT to write an article on it, and we will come. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Step hen 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Door[edit]

Cook Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, written like a brochure, full of POV AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cook Door is the biggest restaurant company in Egypt. However I agree the article needs rewriting, de-POVing and referencing. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference to the article that confirms that this is one of Egypt's two leading fast food chains. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese greyhound incident[edit]

Portuguese greyhound incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The incident is completely unsourced, and yields no result of any kind in a search. Probably a hoax. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the people involved in it are red links, I'd say it's either very non-notable or... yeah, it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...hoax. I can't even find any google hits for the location other than this article. Not to mention that it's incredibly implausible given the docile nature of the greyhound... --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or simply made up. No Google News hits either, and besides Wikipedia isn't for news anywho Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone must have read this in Weekly World News. The only thing missing is a quote from Bat Boy about how to treat animal bites. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G3 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Ormus[edit]

Order of Ormus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Order of Ormus does not exist, its only hoax or joke. Author of article give link to one article about Vatican secret archives, where is nothing about this "order" and as reference book cite Boulton´s Knights of crown, where is nothing about this. Of course nothing about this order is in Burke Word orders, van Duren Orders or any other book. Yopie 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I don't know what the book references say about the Order, but one of the only two things that I could find in either Google Books or Google Scholar was this, which claims that "there is no historical evidence of an Order of Omus," although it does say it was mentioned in some Dossiers secrets, whatever that means. Hazillow (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a hoax and content appears to have been taken straight from here. [19] Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete What was started as an apparent hoax is starting to look more and more like blatant vandalism. This article remains unsupported by any relevent references, yet continues to grow unchecked. I will be tagging this for speedy deletion under CSD G3 Mstuczynski (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should add this information: Ormus mentions that the country was populated by Mandaeans. If you look at the article for Mandaeans, you find that they reject Jesus as a false prophet. The major portion of the article on the "Order of Ormus" cites their connection to the Vatican. Thus we have, in effect, an anti-Christian belief system that the article claims is supported by the Catholic Church. That is the smoking gun that proves this is an obvious and blatant hoax. Mstuczynski (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Town[edit]

Canadian Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an unremarkable property development in Iraq that isn't even off of the drawing board yet. They have a very slick website, but I am unable to locate any other sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the key word will. WP:CRYSTAL. Borderline speedy deletable advertising. When it's built in may be notable, but it doesn't appear so at the moment. Pedro : Chat 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above it is a future prediction.Vice regent 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inacronym[edit]

Inacronym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined; maybe it's not blatant, but this is disguised advertising. It looks at first sight like a rather gimmicky neologism about a "new communications paradigm"; but when you click the link at the bottom you get taken to Inacronym.com, and it turns out that what they really want is to generate you a sort of personal logo and then (click on the "Shop" tab) sell you custom VIPA^TM T-shirts for $19.99, sweat-shirts for $32, hoodies for $38.99, etc. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subtle advertising is still advertising. Also seems to be a neologism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete – I always hate saying; “….Agree with nominator”. However, this time, yes. Could find no information on the word or the company, other than the web site. As Lankiveil points out, advertising is still called advertising even though cloaked as an article. Shoessss | Chat 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the author Jive01 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock of Jbpadgett (talk · contribs) who was blocked yesterday for producing a large number of advertising articles including a first version of this. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, WP:NEO, adv. JJL (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, adding the info that the CEO of the company created the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly spam. Gwernol 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Afd superceeded by transwiki. (non admin close) RogueNinja_talk 08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ankachekavar[edit]

Ankachekavar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable definition, any info in it can be moved to the main article RogueNinja_talk 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki – Better suited for Wiktionary. Tagged article as such. Shoessss | Chat 13:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Transwikied - I would now tag the article for Speedy. Shoessss | Chat 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AfD rendered superfluous by transwiki (non admin close) RogueNinja_talk 08:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnkaKalari[edit]

AnkaKalari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable subsection of a custom, any info in it can be moved to the main article RogueNinja_talk 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki – Better suited for Wiktionary. Tagged article as such. Shoessss | Chat 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Transwikied - I would now tag the article for Speedy. Shoessss | Chat 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, move to bNet. Singu larity 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.net[edit]

B.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I tried to find refs to establish notability last year but came up empty-handed; I found smoke but no fire. If someone finds something that meets the very specific reliable source requirements of our Notability Guideline, I'm willing to reconsider. My Google News archive search came up with passing mentions at best. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
try these, from GoogleNZ. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Came up with a few more references, as shown here [20]. Believe enough coverage to establish WP:Notability. Shoessss | Chat 13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly appears to be enough material from reliable secondary sources to expand and reference this article. - Dravecky (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think reliable sources have been established. Lots more google hits [21] if you use google.co.nz. The bNet NZ Music Awards have been running for 10 years, and seem to get significant media coverage including television coverage, so I can't see how this can be considered non-notable.-gadfium 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to its correct name (bNet). Definitely notable within New Zealand as a major radio network (other than Radio New Zealand I'd be hard pressed to think of another network of this many stations in the country). Grutness...wha? 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and but move to bNet. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, way notable in NZ. Vegetationlife (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources exist, notable. Soxred93 | talk bot 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge. Consensus does not exist as exactly where to merge it though, discussion for that needs to happen on the talkpage. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrendous Space Kablooie[edit]

Horrendous Space Kablooie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, derived from a single joke in a single comic strip. Impossible to achieve anything beyond dicdef status. If all this can be is just a statement of the definition, rather than an exploration of its cultural ramifications, then it has no place on this project. Perhaps Wiktionary. Chardish (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike Thagomizer, it's not likely this is going to enter scientific or general usage anytime soon. Keep. I wasn't aware that it had already done so. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per references in the Daily Telegraph, New York Times, Princeton Weekly Review (describes use by an astrophysicist in his lectures), this course outline, and the book "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science". I've also updated the article to reflect this new information. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of times a neologism has been used, or a list of examples of its use, may establish notability, but it doesn't establish context. We are to avoid articles on neologisms unless we can do more than merely provide a definition. See the relevant policy pages (that and WP:DICDEF) for more info. - Chardish (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think we have established both notability and context. The mainstream media references demonstrate use of the term in discussions about astronomy, while the use in academic circles demonstrates both acceptance of, and a perceived usefulness for, the term. (The Princeton professor has actually gone so far as to incorporate "HSK" and the associated cartoon strip into his lectures on astronomy.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say anything more about this topic than "It's used as a term synonymous for the Big Bang, here's its origin, and it was used here, here, and here"? That is a dictionary definition. We can't have an article unless we go into greater depth, and there just aren't enough reliable sources to do that. I could see a merge with the Calvin and Hobbes article. See The Simpsons#Influences on language - we don't have individual articles on each one of those terms for a good reason. - Chardish (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selective merge) of a couple of sentences and a cite to the cartoon's splash of coverage to Big Bang. An article is not needed for every funny synonym someone coins in a cartoon for every scientific term. Passing mention in the newspapers cited is not substantial coverage. An individual professor's course notes are not a reliable source, since he can say just about anything in them with no editorial review. Edison (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Big Bang as per Edison. The term also gets a mention in Simon Singh's book the Big Bang on pages 483 - 484. He says there it was used by cosmologists, abbreviating it to the HSK. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but not to Big Bang, as the term is of marginal relevance to the actual Big Bang. (Come on people! We're talking about the origin of the entire universe!) Merge to Calvin and Hobbes. <eleland/talkedits> 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Both afore mentioned locations, because Wikipedia is not paper and it can afford space on both Articles Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ATLANTIS.pdf[edit]

Image:ATLANTIS.pdf (edit | [[Talk:Image:ATLANTIS.pdf|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is original research, is it appropriate to be stored here? It isn't published anywhere (which is why it was put here, so Italianboy101 (who also used Dougwellera as a login until blocked) could use it as a reference in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Thanks Doug Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an essay promoting the author's original ideas and interpretations of ancient primary sources. Quotes like "Suggestions for further readings that support my idea of Sicily being the Pillars of Hercules" show it's pure WP:OR. Not to mention, from the purely technical standpoint, we want Wikitext, not PDF files with embedded images that are hard to reuse. cab (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, as it's an essay uploaded as a media file, I guess AfD is the right space to consider this in, as opposed to Wikipedia:Images for deletion or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. cab (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if you can't find someone to host your PDF, then the contents probably aren't all that reliable. Totally improper use of the Media: namespace. I must admit this is the first time I've seen a case like this though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and Lankiveil. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay per nom. Note that the AfD template yells at you though for putting this in AfD instead of IfD; however, it's kind of a borderline case here so I'll just let the template yell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Articles can't be submitted as PDF's, because they must be editable by normal article editing processes. It may be a GFDL violation; it certainly seems contrary to the premise of Wikipedia to host any article in non-plaintext form. It does seem to be somewhat of a pickle where this should be discussed. But, as A. P. Herbert observed, "there is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there's an interesting question. "Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include ... PDF designed for human modification. ... Opaque formats include ... the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only." Dunno which case this falls under. cab (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Smerdis and the nominator. This is an improper way of hosting an article (and I believe WP:NOT has something to say about that, plus it violates WP:NOR. Simply put, if the contents of the essay can't be put into a viable article in plain text, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not your personal webspace and is no place for pdf files. also per WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER and WP:OR. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Note the user who uploaded this has done a lot to promote this theory on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Superatlantis. Even without these concerns, PDFs are still an inappropriate format and it should be deleted anyway. Hut 8.5 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St george church new panvel[edit]

St george church new panvel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Non-notable building, was built less than an year ago. Article doesn't assert its notability, nor is notable enough to warrant its own article. Welt^anschaunng 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual churches are non-notable. I can't find any sources that mention this church in detail, and I can't even figure out what diocese it's in (which might at least help verify the church's existence and location, albeit not establishing notability). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have since been able to confirm that the church's diocese does list the existence of a church by this name in this town, and added a link to the directory listing from the diocese web site. Of course, that doesn't establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now : Give some time for the article to expand / expanded by Wikipedians. - Tinucherian (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD usually lasts for five days. IMO, there is nothing notable about this church. Considering it was built only last year, it would have to be the largest church ever, or something like that to be notable. If WP:A7 had included a clause about buildings, this would have been csded right away. Also there are no third party sources to indicate that this church even exists, let alone prove its notability(as per user:Metropolitan90). Welt^anschaunng 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever; it's just a church, and a fairly new one at that. Not all churches are notable enough for Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. For some ideas on what a church article could include to help establish notability, see the (rejected) guideline Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). Edison (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It gives zero info of the title. It should be included in the main church article (if there is, I could not find anything such as it belongs to which organization, very difficult to know since there is not even a single source also) . The external link given also doesn’t make any logic or any information of “St george church new panvel”. --Avinesh Jose T 10:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link I put in turned out to be a search result which doesn't result in a copyable link. (I forget what that sort of thing is called.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another NN church. It might be nice to have articles on every church. Of course every one thinks their own church is notable, but most are not. That is why I have not written an article about the church of which I am a member. If retained, the title should be changed to the standard format. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Armour[edit]

Jane Armour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability here is iffy. She has a site here, but just about any legitimate horse trainer should have those sorts of qualifications. I'm not sure if there's anything significant about her. Then again, I don't know what is significant in the equestrian world. ALTON .ıl 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Unfortunately I have to agree. While I'm sure she is a competent and perhaps even an excellent instructor, there is nothing about her qualifications that affirm clear-cut notability. The only information I could find about her was on her web site.—RJH (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Riding instructor without any significant notability. Dgf32 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Published Author - "Steps to Success Through Clinics And Confidence By Jane Armour" ISBN 0741430908. There is also another book, but my gut tells me that it is from a different person [22]. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply having a book is not enough unless the book has been well reviewed or is a definitive work in the field. Sorry, but insufficient for WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurer Productions OnStage[edit]

Maurer Productions OnStage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable small theater production company and also blatant promotion. Coverage from only one reliable independent source. Only a handful of relevant Google hits, and most of those are contrrolled by the subject. Article was written by a member of the company, violating WP:COI. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For some reason, Twinkle didn't put the {{afd1}} notice on the article itself. Sorry. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur theatre company. Dgf32 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - lacks the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabitha Kumari[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari

Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari 2

Sabitha Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a relisting of the previous AfD, which was compromised by sockpuppetry. Nominator's Soman's rationale for deletion was lack of reliable, non-blog sources. Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copypasted from old afd) Comment: to my count, there is currently 4 news sources; DNA, The Statesman and 2 Telegraph articles. The Statesman mentions that S.K. led a squad in West Bengal, but no bio info. [23] says that she's a woman in her 20s from Andhra Pradesh. [24] says that she's a woman in her early 20s from Jharkhand. [25] goes into more details. One can suppose that all of the info originates from the Intelligence Branch (IB) of the West Bengal police. I find that there is a real problem of verifiablity here. Also, an open question is whether being a squad commander (leading tens of soldiers) is enough notability for a bio article. Could there be any confirmation of position inside the party? I'd say that being a state committee or central committee member would be a minimum for notability of a leader inside the party. --Soman (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially voted to delete but after seeing the "news" I am convinced that she is really notable because she is supposedly the first woman squadron leader of these rebel groups and seem to have a very important effect where she is operating. It qualifies as a stub now Taprobanus (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While there isn't tons of press coverage, there is enough to suggest that she might be notable. Dgf32 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been adequately edited & sourced from the earlier BLP state. DGG (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to meet the criteria for notability at WP:BIO, although I'm not familiar enough with the cited sources to know for certain whether they are reliable or not. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after better sourcing and with the nominator's withdrawal. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Louisa Wells[edit]

Clara Louisa Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

~~Non-notable author. Even the most determined searches in French libraries (see talk page) has failed to uncover any indication of notability.~~ Jfire (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the books would seem to exist, but I she doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:BIO or WP:BK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can't find anything relevant online, but that can be attributed her books being published a century ago and in a different language.--TBC !?! 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Apparently also an inventor but it isn't 100% certain to me. Profile on p. 12 could meet WP:BIO but it's rather vague and seems uncertain of its facts, so I'd be reluctant to hang an article on it. Worldcat shows only four books at all, two in no libraries, one in two, and one in six. Significance seems very slight. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but I wasn't sure at first that it was the same person. However, the dates and places do seem to match up, and indeed, here are some of her patents, including one listed in the article. Centers Providing Means for Controlling and Utilizing Volcanic, Aqueous, and Meteorological Forces is quite an amusing read. I'm starting to think we should keep this article. Jfire (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "weak" delete is one that could be altered by the presence of better sources, but as I noted, I have my doubts about the reliability of that particular source, particularly if it's all we have. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is mentioned in Olga Majolo Molinari's La stampa periodica romana dell'Ottocento (1963), which says she founded in 1874 and directed in the 1870s an Italian cultural periodic. The "snippet view" limit my possibilities to read the text; but it adds it was warmly reviewed by another periodic Il liuto, and says it's directed by the "eminenent literate miss Clara L. Wells" ("distinta letterata"). An article is here [26] dedicated to the Italian translation of her book The Alban Hills, Vol. I: Frascati, and on the official presentation in Frascati. She is also mentioned as a notable inventor, having deposed 117 industrial designs and is called a "pioneer" [27]. A contribution on her ("Clara Wells: Oisive dilettante ou visionnaire inspirée?", by Alain Balsan) appears in a French journal, the Bulletin de la Société Départementale d'Archéologie et de Statistique de la Drôme, tome LXXXIII, 1982.[28].--Aldux (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this indicates she may be covered or mentioned in this book. I'm withdrawing this nomination on the basis of these sources. Jfire (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another trace of C.L. Wells work (in French language):"- C. Jacquet, Histoire de Puget-Théniers. Moult noble cité et ancienne, 1942. Signalons une curieuse étude celle de Clara Louisa Wells, The arrondissement of Puget-Theniers in the departement of the Alpes Maritimes, Valence, Imprimerie valentinoise, 1922. Il s'agit en effet d'une compilation où l'on trouve aussi bien la liste des évêques de Vence qu'un panorama de l'histoire générale de la France au XIX° siècle." Luiclemens (talk) 21:15, 01 march 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 speedy delete -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electromatic[edit]

Electromatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD removed twice by anonymous IP. Non-notable band. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heroes characters[edit]

List of World Heroes characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fancrufty details about characters who are already adequately described in World Heroes. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the character descriptions in the main article are superior. -Icewedge (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or just redirect to World Heroes.--TBC !?! 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per TBC. JuJube (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia is disencouraged in Wikipedia, and this article is pure trivia. And main article has clear information about characters. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable information into the World Heroes article. That article isn't long enough to split off a character list. --Pixelface (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath the Gun[edit]

Underneath the Gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Awakening (Underneath the Gun album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No other sites than myspace. Simple searches yield nothing of importance. The only sites that come up are lyrics or the wiki page. They do have a metal observer, or something related to that, type of page but it has nothing posted on it. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a claim to a member belonging formerly to a notable band. The names do not match both pages. Undeath (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian deathcore? Hmm. Either way, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, so Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete along with related article The Awakening (Underneath the Gun album). Lacks independent, reliable sources.--TBC !?! 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artist and album for failing all aspects of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and no new references turned up. Delete --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G1 Pedro : Chat 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchup and mustard song[edit]

Ketchup and mustard song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability for this underground cartoon. No sources presented to even suggest it exists. As usual, de-proded by author with no explanation. eaolson (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. I'll tag it. I have searched for the song, and I have found nothing. Probably a hoax or OR. Undeath (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I've had a hard time locating the mp3 online, but I will soon update the article with the file". I wouldn't bother. Hoax, OR, whatever, it's not verifiable. Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 (copyvio) by User:John Reaves, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fumblerules[edit]

List of fumblerules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes, regardless if it's used for the purpose of teaching grammar. Also, seeing that parts of the list were copied directly from outside sources, it might count as a copyright violation TBC !?! 05:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you could make these up until the cows came home, but they wouldn't be suitable for a list really. Also, I share the copyvio concerns. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete unsourced, vague criteria --Step hen 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format (2nd nomination)

List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has a number of problems. First of all, what makes a shopping mall "converted to outdoor format" and what constitutes an entirely new shopping center? Some of these facilities are complete demolitions, while others appear to retain former structure. I've found nothing, and it's likely that this key element is unverifiable. Additionally, the vast majority of these shopping facilities are non-notable, and likely never will be considered notable, i.e. we will have a sea of redlinks forever. This seems to indicate to me "listcruft". Therefore I consider this article somewhat beyond remediation, and advise its deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The criteria are very vague -- what if it began its life as an outdoor mall and was converted to big box? Does that count? And what about cases where the mall building was simply gutted for big box, instead of a demo/rebuild? Et cetera. I agree with the nom that this is listcruft, and is very likely to remain a sea of mostly red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced and no indication why a shopping mall converted to outdoor format is notable while a shopping mall not converted to outdoor format presumably is not. eaolson (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above deletes. There is no need for a list of converted malls. Undeath (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utter mallcruft. There's no significance here. If there's somewhere that "de-malling" is discussed, a few examples (chosen from bluelinks, preferably) will suffice. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, really slippery criteria for inclusion, as stated in the nom. Not really suitable as a list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - One could try to sharpen definitions, but the key questions: (1) is the list factually correct and verifiable, (2) is it of interest. (1) It is certainly verifiable (sources could be required, if no wikipedia article exists), but it is in principle verifiable. Lack of sources does not warrant deletion, it warrants requesting sources. (2) Is it of interest? - Well I am interested, as were all the contributors. The phenomenon of "demalling" is significant, and there is in general interest in dead technologies and retrenchment from an historical perspective. The fact that some members of a list are non-notable does not make the list as a whole non-notable. dml (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've outlined the problem quite well - what makes a shopping center "converted" to an outdoor format? That's what is the problem. The main premise of this list is unclear, and has not yet been verified with a reliable source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is coverage on issues and trends like this that aren't picked up by anyone except trade publications. Considering the normal criteria for keeping lists on Wikipedia, this list certainly contributes information that Wikipedia would lose if this article gets deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, so far as I know, there's not an article about "outdoor format" malls, which is odd, because it's a trend in the industry. I can see where there are objections to this orphaned list. But I honestly don't understand what the problem is with the definition. There was a mall that took up several acres at a particular location, and they took off the roof, so that now the same acres house what resembles a town's business district. That's it. I disagree with the idea that it's not notable; as you might imagine, it's a pretty expensive bit of remodeling and it's a major marketing decision. About the question of what do you do about an outdoor mall that became an indoor mall and now it's an outdoor mall again, "outdoor" malls are a relatively new concept. Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all that new a concept. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (and I appreciate the reference). Still, there's a trend toward this type of design, and it's significant that a lot of these places are making that "go out, or go out of business" choice. I'm still surprised that there doesn't seem to be any general article about this change in marketing strategy-- I read one article in Newsweek last year, and no doubt, it's been written up in business magzines before then. Usually, this type of list is a spinoff of a parent article. Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's another problem - there is no parent article. My problem is primarily with the list. The concept is ripe to be discussed in shopping mall, and one could certainly find reliable sources to support the trend of opening up enclosed shopping centers or replacing enclosed shopping centers with more open styles. However, for purposes of the list, any way of qualifying it for purposes of inclusion in the list would likely be original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Im sorry, but voting in, closing and renominating strays a little to close to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. "it appears that the former article is going to be deleted, so delete this one as well " (from the first AfD) is basing this Articles deletion upon its apparent lack of a 'Parent' Article, and that would be cause to erase half of WP. "the vast majority of these shopping facilities are non-notable, and likely never will be considered notable" is pure crystalballery. All other Nom issues are correctable by editing. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted it has no sources at all, list inclusion criteria are imprecise, and there's no evidence that this is a useful way to categorize malls—no evidence of any reliable sources that make this distinction, so WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Quale (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any notable malls can be split off into their own articles. It's also unsourced, which also isn't good. Also, how is this usable on Wikipedia? Most lists on Wikipedia (e.g, lists of episodes for a television series) are done to combine several articles into one. I don't see any use like that for this list. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11). (The inclusion of the address and phone number with "for more information" pushed this past a simple A7 for me.) SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interact-TV Inc.[edit]

Interact-TV Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable web company. The article is basically an advertisement and much of it is copied directly off of http://interact-tv.com/mission.php Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7, has been tagged as such.--TBC !?! 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuanggen Jin[edit]

Shuanggen Jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A doctor of questionable import. Google hits suggest this guy is real and perhaps has some notability, but the primary editor is Shuanggen Jin (talk · contribs), who has done some at times nonsensical changes and keeps removing the maintenance tags. Since I'm not familiar with the subject, I keep my vote at Neutral and ask WP's experts to help out. JuJube (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His edit history is hilarious. I love how at one point he had a userbox labeled "Global Positioning Satellite" with a picture of a bunch of satellites on his Wikipedia article (found here). I really don't know if we should keep or delete this, so I'll say neutral. Hazillow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to wanfangdata.com.cn, he has published 28 papers in Chinese, of which the most popular was cited 8 times [29]. No idea what would pass WP:PROF for his field. cab (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, would not appear to meet any of the WP:PROF notability criteria. He might just meet #4 due to Chinese-language materials that I cannot read, and if someone in the know can assert that this is true, I'll cheerfully change my vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, no any Chinese-language materials to speak of, aside from the papers I mentioned above; his name only gets 49 non-duplicate GHits in Chinese [30], all of which are just stuff he's written or unrelated people by the same name, with no reliable, independent sources. cab (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The wiki entry was started by user:Shuanggen Jin, so he was creating a page for himself. What happened to the "Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays." rule?! So it's OK for me to create 1 wiki entry about myself now?! Facebook, Myspace WATCH OUT! TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a notable person creates an entry about themselves, we clean it up instead of deleting it. This is in line with the general deletion policy, which states that if an article has surmountable problems, we edit it instead of deleting it. WP:COI in and of itself is not a deletion reason. The point of this discussion is to determine whether he passes WP:PROF or some other biographical notability criterion. cab (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cab. Those guidelines don't apply here. This is the first and only entry that he created, this is why he registered wiki and becoming a member. He did all these for this entry, aka an ad for himself. I have done many searches on baidu with his Chinese name. Nothing notable popped up. Heck, I work for a Fortune 100 Company in the field of GPS also, you guys might wanna watch out for my wiki entry very soon! Besides, I couldn't find any information about this "Earthquake Disaster Reduction project, China Earthquake Administration" in either language. Speedy Delete would be even better. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any professor would have the same level of distinctions. Most professors are required to have published work, some sort of leadership, etc.. ALTON .ıl 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cab's guidelines are correct. COI is irrelevant, if he is really notable. It depends of course, on how much they publish. But relying on what cab reported, the number of Chinese-language papers is significant, the number of citations quite the opposite, but this is not really my subject, and it might be a small specialty., I cant find any in English. Keeping to what I can see, it would be quite unusual for a scientist who received a PhD just 4 or 5 years ago to be already notable. DGG (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notabity not proved. Could be suitable for Chinese Wiki. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of sourcing in verifiable, independent publications (all are press releases) 17:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy Literacy Advocates[edit]

Energy Literacy Advocates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Google news has only press releases and one or two passing mentions. Their own "In the news" page has only a press release and an op ed. Previous prod contested ~~without rationale~~ by article creator. Jfire (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete I found coverage ~~including Forbes, which appears to be about the organization. That's what kept me from nominating this when I found it but~~ I still can't see an article emerging, it's not spam but it's not encyclopedic either. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is a businesswire press release (not a RS). Not to mention a dead link. Jfire (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come back and add that once I tracked down the live version (with 54 extra copies in case anyone wanted one to go :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Reuters also.[31] Just over the bar. DGG (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a press release. Jfire (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the only coverage that I can find seems to be reprints of press releases. Not sufficiently independent to assert notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The rationale for contesting the prod (which I put) can be found here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice that it had been deleted and restored. Thanks for the correction. Jfire (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Djakovic[edit]

Ryan Djakovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of non-notable water parks designer. Also spam for his company. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does assert notability but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be the subject any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-sourced autobiography, WP:VSCA tendencies. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject. Appears to be autobiography. Not verifiable by independ third party sources. Shameless self-promotion. Dgf32 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There also doesn't seem to be a healthy consensus to merge, but that discussion is for the talk pages, not for a deletion discussion venue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cannabis cultivation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Indoor Cannabis cultivation

Articles for deletion/Indoor Cannabis cultivation (2nd nomination)

Indoor Cannabis cultivation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject covered at Cannabis (drug) cultivation, no need for 2 articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cannabis (drug) cultivation.--TBC !?! 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~ Agreed- deletion was already considered, but I could understand merging with Cannabis (drug) cultivation. Έρεβος 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article supplements the information in the main article Cannabis (drug) cultivation and, as both articles are substantial, the need for the subarticle format seems clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge would be appropriate, endless cannabis spin-offs isn't and I would urge you to merge the material. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cannabis (drug) cultivation. Dgf32 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As per the first nomination, merging would make the main article way too long. Particularly so if you merged other associated articles, such as Outdoor Cannabis cultivation Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly re your length argument, we have enough information for one longish article and that is what would serve our readers best. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write a longish article about this and related subjects then you are free to do so. Mergers do not require deletion so why are we here? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The afd was started when redirecting was opposed, as it wasn't for the outdoor article, which is now a redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion on the talk page. This nomination seems too hasty. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. How many of the sources cited (actually cited, not tacked on the bottom of the article) meet our standards for reliable sources? RFerreira (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem good but there are hundreds of scholarly sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I wouldn't be opposed to a delete and redirecting this title to Cannabis (drug) cultivation. RFerreira (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Jambalaya (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frumpy defna and the texas yard[edit]

Frumpy defna and the texas yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BAND. No references provided showing notability. Three non-wikipedia ghits. Prod removed. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BAND guidelines. Only references are to Craiglist and MySpace.--TBC !?! 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7 as a non-notable band. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom.Yopie 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. Dgf32 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7 by User:SchuminWeb. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moutasim[edit]

Moutasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable movement. Zero google hits for "moutasim movement", one Google hit for "Moutasim abdel". Corvus cornix_talk 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not a notable movement in any way given the total goose egg it seems to produce in the reliable source department. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7, has been tagged as such.--TBC !?! 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland whalefishers[edit]

Greenland whalefishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC in every way. No third party sources or notable label. The only reason I didn't tag it for speedy deletion was due to the stub rating. Undeath (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable band in any way, fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC, and is not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 on second thought, this band is really falling short of WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This did not need a relisting, it should have been speedy deleted to begin with and still should have been speedy deleted. Fails CSD requirements for non-notable groups. Corvus cornix_talk 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Sharif[edit]

Rehan Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. No evidence he ever played for Whyteleafe or Sutton United. You can see a video of what is presumably the article creator/Rehan Sharif/"Il Re" on YouTube -- in fact that's as notable as he gets. Jfire (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources can be found confirming the assertions. Undeath (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if sources can be found to confirm the assertions. Whyteleafe and Sutton are not professional teams, and therefor playing for them confers no notability whatsoever ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a player whose best claims to fame is playing for Sutton United reserves? A long, long way from notability. - fchd (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails athlete, and doesn't assert notability. John Hayes^talk 09:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entry is laughable. I don't think he's professional, playing for Whyteleafe F.C. and Sutton United. And well known for ... I hardly doubt he's well known. Just seen the youtube video - he's now also notable for being able to use his left foot by flicking the screen over. Peanut4 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tear trough rejuvenation[edit]

Tear trough rejuvenation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The content is very similar to this article. It's also advertisement disguised as an article, with direct links to a surgeon's website. Would need to be entirely rewritten to avoid the conflict of interest issues. Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. --TBC !?! 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisment, albeit one cunningly disguised as scholarly information with all the "sources". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - concur. As crypto-spam goes, this one deserves some kind of prize. Still, it is rather essayish rather than descriptive. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too specialised for its own article and the end credit section makes clear it was primarily written for self-promotion purposes. The author could instead consider starting an article on "cosmetic oculoplastic surgery" (or "cosmetic oculoplastics"), a topic on which the author clearly has considerable expertise, and which could then include a section on this particular procedure amongst others, and give the appropriate wider context. Note that we already have an article on oculoplastics. "cosmetic oculoplastics" is the appropriate next step as WP grows and articles subdivide and split, not an article on one specific procedure. Qwfp (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Wizard Chronicles[edit]

Death Wizard Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book series. Article has no independent, reliable sources. All relevant Google hits are the website for the series, a video which appears to have been self-produced, his own blogs, and clips quoted on other blogs. The user name of the original author is User:Thedeathwizard, which indicates a likely conflict of interest. Furthermore, the user's account is new and apparently a single-purpose account. Looks like a pretty obvious effort by the author to promote his book series. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. To start with, the article's mis-named: the text is about the author, not the series. The author's only claim to notability here is the books, though, so nearly the same qualification applies, namely has he/they gotten noticed. I'm finding no evidence of this. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To start with, the contents of the article don't deal with the title. The author that the article discusses seems to be non-notable, as do his books. My search for sources resulted in the same outcome as the nominator's. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - self-promotion, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Dark Kensai[edit]

Tales of the Dark Kensai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Novel series published by vanity press Publish America, written for the most part as an advertisement. Grand total of 7 Ghits, including 2 from Wikipedia and 2 from a Wikipedia mirror. Original prod by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) removed by original contributor. Pichpich (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ad for a self-published, non-notable book.--TBC !?! 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims "deserves attention and recognition," which pretty much admits that it has not yet gotten it, and that's the Wikipedia definition of notability. Or if you want to get technical about it, of notability for books. No prejudice against recreating if it does eventually get that recognition. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-published and non-notable book. Note that this does not mean that the books aren't good, it just means that they haven't got the acclaim and analysis that's pretty much required to pass WP:BK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Exterminate, completely non-notable, unsourced, and seems to be an ad. MixItUp 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid: Remote Ops[edit]

Metal Gear Solid: Remote Ops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of Notability. The article is misleading since Konami was not the one who created this hoax. In fact it was a fansite Snake Soup that orchestrated the April Fools Day joke. All the sources for that article entry point to the same exact page here. Doing searches on Google lead to that article and this Wikipedia article. No other game websites have any sort of information about this April Fools day joke. Strongsauce (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure April Fools day joke by a non-notable fansite. --TBC !?! 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very obscure and non-notable prank, as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Even pranks now get wiki entries?! TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate for obvious reasons. MixItUp 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nash[edit]

Michael Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In wikifying the article, I found multiple claims that could not be backed up by outside sources: (1) a grand jury award from the International Lisbon Film Festival, not found in a search of recent years' awards at indielisboa.com (e.g. 2007); (2) "The 2007 Global Innovation Award", claimed to be shared with several highly notable people, not found by Google, (3) mention in a book, supposedly forthcoming in 2007, The Mindset of Innovation, not listed at Amazon nor found with any isbn by Google. Removing these (and some irrelevant family stories) from the article left no claim of notability. I also searched rottentomatoes.com for reviews of his film Fuel but found none, though he and it are listed at IMDB. David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found possible confirmation at the Lisbon Village Festival site here that the film Fuel won Best International Feature, yet I have not been able to find any newspaper articles about Nash himself (or about this win for Fuel) when I searched a library database. Delete unless some sources are found. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IMDB backs up that he won the "The Grand Jury Award" at the Lisbon Film Festival ([32]). Seems notable enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Uh, that's a biography of Michael Nash submitted by a user named "MN". While IMDB credits are generally 99% correct, biographies are user-submitted and don't pass WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, good catch, didn't see that bit. Struck out my vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Exterminate, quite possibly a self-written article. If somebody who wasn't the film maker had written it...? MixItUp 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after sustained investigation (as above), I've been unable to find anything on his "win". Per WP:V and all that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete None of his films are even remotely notable and nothing else that he has done is notable enough for him to have his own Wikipedia page. The Dominator (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Proof that Fuel won the prize for Best International Feature Film at the Lisbon Village Festival can be found at http://lisbon07.villagefestival.net/en/02pressreleases.aspx?menu=2&id=21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.189.43 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirected to correct term. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond crunch[edit]

Hammond crunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This should either go to Wiktionary or be merged into a medical article, maybe Boerhaave syndrome. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamman's sign, which is the more popular term.--TBC !?! 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea - redirection. Fantumphool (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick T. Long[edit]

Roderick T. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the subject fails wp:prof, and is non-notable. i can't find any reliable sources demonstrating that he's an important philosopher. Bob A (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force-related deletion debate. скоморохъ 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Long is editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, he has books that are the subject of critical review, and he is a Senior Faculty member of a notable institution with a focus that is congruent with his area of scholarly expertise. He has published numerous articles, lectures, etc. at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, both notable in their own right. Enough reliable sources are available (and currently cited in the article) to provide an encyclopedia article of some value to a reader seeking insight into who Long is and what he does. As the article notes, He has published with noted libertarian authors including fellow Ayn Rand scholar Tibor Machan. His work has been debated by Walter Block, Robert Bidinotto, and others. Notable authors citing Long's work include Stephan Kinsella, Richard Stallman, Walter Block, and Gene Callahan. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

being cited by a notable person doesn't confer notability. furthermore, stallman doesn't actually cite long; he only has a short critical comment about long's article about copyright. the (wikipedia) article doesn't say that he's a senior faculty member, so i would ask what institution that is. i would also ask what notable, independent writers have reviewed long's work. Bob A (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Mises Institute's faculty listing, Long is a member of the "Senior Faculty." And Stallman's short piece names Long in the title, stating that Long's argument, and others like it, are useful for certain purposes related to the free information movement that Stallman supports and is himself notable for. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the mises institute is notable, but hardly significant. Bob A (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did the encyclopedia come to this conclusion, may I ask? DickClarkMises (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand. Bob A (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cited by numerous authors and has published a couple of books.--TBC !?! 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — all of the sources that the first nomination mentions are the product of a single think-tank. I'm not convinced he is exceptional as an academic, and is primarily notable within a fringe circle of political economists. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Stallman source is not related to the others. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A prolific, frequently cited, scholarly writer and presenter, author of important works on edgy topics (class theory, feminism, collective property, etc) within libertarian philosophy; prolific, serious, and oft-cited blogger; editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies; past scholar in residence at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State (which is a name to conjure with in at least some circles); archivist and translator of libertarian historical material; founder of the Molinari Society and Institute; Movement for a Democratic Society board member; left-libertarian activist; inventor of the "zaxlebax; etc. A no-brainer in my book. Libertatia (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any independent sources available to verify those claims?--TBC !?! 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

none of those things by itself makes him notable, and it's doubtful that they do together. the molinari society and institute are completely non-notable, and the "zaxlebax" thing is perhaps a textbook example of something you made up one day. Bob A (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've admitted you're on some weird head-hunt for "anarcho-capitalists," (which is not, btw, how Long identifies himself) and are working against the consensus developed on the anarchist pages over the last couple of years. I wonder what it would take for you to acknowledge the notability of someone you disagree with? How many scholars can you name who are well-published on conventional philosophy and political philosophy, have organized regular events at professional meetings (Molinari symposia at American Philosophical Association meetings), produced translations, engaged in developing free archives of scarce material, networked effectively both within and outside of standard academic circles, who sit on the board of organizations of the present/historical interest of SDS/MDS? Long's CV suggests a well-rounded academic, of the sort universites prize. His publications from the Social Philosophy and Policy Center crowd don't emerge from some lock-step agreement on positions, which is one of the reasons that Long's name is one to conjure with in libertarian philosophy circles. But this is another instance where what is painfully obvious in actual academic circles is inadmissable on Wikipedia. Peers are dismissed as "not independent," without any substantive understanding of the circumstances of any actual relation. Etc. What a train-wreck. Libertatia (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to answer your question, a source showing that he's a prominent philosopher. Bob A (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those things all sound like evidence for notability. Can you cite sources documenting any of them? Binarybits (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Manana, most likely. Though hitting some serious scholarly databases with "Long, Roderick T." and "Roderick T. Long," plus the names of the institutions involved will get it today. Libertatia (talk)
I've posted some links to some sources and search results concerning Long on the talk page of his entry. The bottom line for me is that I know I can walk across campus to the philosophy department, walk into any of a dozen offices where "libertarian philosophy" is spoken, mumble something about "Roderick" and "collective property" and most likely be understood. I could do the same thing on my blog. I happen to be acquainted with Long, through the internet, as are some of the folks over in philosophy. Our projects overlap. That's the way academic networks work, after all. "Independence" from the scholars who work in your field is always relative. In a field like libertarian history and philosophy, there are likely to be other organizational overlaps as well (political groups, think tanks, etc.) Long strikes as a pretty open-and-shut case for inclusion on Wikipedia two basic grounds: 1) his importance within an admittedly small field, libertarian philosophy, which seems to be indicated by (rather than against, as some are claiming), but his close and repeated collaborations with notable scholars and institutions in that field; and 2) the breadth and diversity of his scholarly activity (books, journal articles, a very scholarly blog, translations, the organization of symposia, historical archiving) which is certainly over and above the output of most of my university colleagues. An academic who produces lots of work, effectively transcends the academic/popular divide strikes me as notable. I have not included links to proprietary databases, since they wouldn't work for most folks, but Long does have a number of listings in the Philosopher's Index and some of the citation indexes. Much of that material is contained in the Google Scholar search. Libertatia (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites mostly demonstrate that he's prolific, but prolific isn't the same as notable. The question is whether some of his many works have been more widely cited than run-of-the-mill academic papers. The Google Scholar search, for example, seems to suggest that Long's most-cited work has been cited 12 times. For contrast, here is a Google Scholar search for an academic here in Missouri I happen to know. His most-cited work has 161 citations, and he has about 20 papers that have been cited more often than Long's top-cited paper. Yet he doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and I think it's debatable whether he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Long is reasonably well known within his very narrow field of LvMI-style libertarian philosophy, but if you slice things narrowly, every academic is well-known in some sub-specialty. Binarybits (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are no non-trivial independent sources cited. Most of the cited sources have close ties to Long. And the one who doesn't (Stallman) doesn't actually discuss him in any detail. Binarybits (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DickClarkMises. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- He is a respected philosopher of Aristotelean leaning with several books (various publishers), many publications, etc. A quick Google search would easily reveal to all of you that he meets the standards for notability -- i.e. "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor". In fact I stumbled across this page because I am citing him in a Law article and wanted to know more about him. Much more importantly though, the apparent reason that this is up for deletion is because a group of people are trying to use Wikipedia as a political tool. It is apparent from their edit history and their web pages that people like Bob A and Binarybits have a personal ax to grind with anyone affiliated with the LvMI. Indeed, a quick google search would reveal, e.g., the running flame war between Cato people, like Binarybits, and LvMI people like Long. I am very serious about Wikipedia being a authoritative encyclopedia and I don't take kindly to people trying to use this website to promote some partisan or personal agenda. The article needs to be kept. The morgawr (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I didn't propose the deletion and listed myself as a weak delete. Binarybits (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

morgawr, you do not help your case by making baseless accusations against other editors. Please assume good faith unless you have proof that this AfD was made in bad faith. Either way, Binarybits did not propose the AfD, and appears to have an open mind on the issue. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it is my professional opinion, as a law journal editor, that Long qualifies (on the low end of) "notable". It is also my professional opinion, as someone very familiar with how academic rivalries work, that there is something extremely fishy going on here. I am pointing out the facts; others can make an independent judgment, but the facts need to be considered and not ignored. What I have set forth is an exceedingly strong circumstantial case in any court of law. People have been convicted of murder and executed with less evidence. Hence I find your claim that these accusations are "baseless" perplexing to say the least.

My particular concern here is this: Many journals use a triage system when they are evaluating articles. This is especially true for legal journals, an area where many of these people publish interdisciplinary work. The way the system works is that authors are categorized using notability. A typical division would be "very well known", "notable", "law faculty", "student/practitioner". When filling slots for publication, the journals go in order. Hence, more notable people get preferential treatment during article selection. Since the wikipedia notability requirements are the same as the requirements for most journals, many use wikipedia as a substitute for independently evaluating the notability of a submission's author. The result is that a notability evaluation on wikipedia can have an enormous impact on a scholar's ability to publish.

Looking at the edit history on these articles, there are a small group of people who are making large numbers of negative edits to the pages of people affiliated with the LvMI. This behavior has gone on for several years and has involved similar requests for pages of people similarly affiliated, e.g. Stephan Kinsella. It so happens that many of the editors are affiliated with a rival institute that has an ax to grind. Consequently, they are most likely biased (or at least likely to appear biased) and hence have little business editing these articles at all -- let alone suggesting their removal. If they were serious about improving the quality of wikipedia they would be incorporating information that isn't there to make these, admittedly poor quality, articles better, e.g., Walter Block's page doesn't mention that he is Ron Paul's economics adviser.

Given the fierce rivalries of many people in academia, we have to be extra cautious about making these changes based on biased or potentially biased sources -- the people involved can not only harm their "enemies", they can in the process help their friends by booting people from the "notable" pool. Consequently, in the case of an especially nasty rivalry (like LvMI v. Cato), I worry that Wikipedia may devolve into a battle ground in the war that is academic politics. Looking at the edit history of many of the relevant articles, I worry that it already has. The morgawr (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? Not only have I never proposed the deletion of a LvMI scholar's page, but as far as I can remember this is the first LvMI-related AfD I've ever participated in. I added a refimprove tag to a number of LvMI articles earlier this month because the quality of references seemed poor, but that's the extent of my participation. Maybe the reason people keep independently trying to delete these pages is because they're so poorly sourced. Binarybits (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Lee you are simply not credible. You are a participant in the bad blood between the institutes. Despite your involvement in these disputes, you claim not to know who the people on the other side are. Despite your very public anti-Paul stance, you want me to believe that you are not going after his economic adviser and other affiliates. Sorry, there is a reason the rest of us in academia assume that anything said between the two groups is false. You guys stopped being credible on this issue long ago. The morgawr (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't spend as much time obsessing over Ron Paul as you apparently do. I had no idea Long was his economic advisor. And again, I didn't propose this AfD and haven't participated in any others, so I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. Binarybits (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Lee, as you are aware from our discussion on Talk:Walter_Block, in which you suggested that Block was "not notable", Walter Block is Paul's economics adviser --- this is public knowledge. Block is affiliated professionally with Long. Your own blog indicates that you know all of this -- you participated in the most recent flame war between the two groups. I am pointing out your inconsistency so that people can make their own judgement. On the one hand, these guys were notable enough for the "big names" at Cato to get into a flame war with. It is simply not believable that you, as a minor participant in the most recent flare up, do not know who these people are or why they are notable.
The fact that I've criticized LvMI doesn't mean that I'm familiar with everyone who's affiliated with them. You might want to double-check the settings on your tinfoil hat. Binarybits (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i did a google search for "roderick long philosophy" and the first real independent result was rms's comments. i couldn't find anyone not associated with liberalism indicating that he's a notable philosopher. the accusation that i "have an axe to grind" isn't relevant to afd. Bob A (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the same exact thing with leading experts in various fields: A. N. Yiannopoulos (Civil Law), Edward F. Sherman (Complex Litigation), Martin J. Davies(Admiralty). Similar results are obtained for specialists outside of law, e.g. Kenneth L. Kaiser (EMC). Mind you, these people are not just notable, they are at the top of their respective specialty. By your "google test", they wouldn't be included in Wikipedia, and yet they clearly and indisputably pass the true notability test ----"the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Long isn't the top of his field, but he is "more notable than the average college professor". I know this because I asked around. I confirmed it by doing detailed web searches -- what journals has he written in, on what topics, how relevant is he in his given specialty, etc.
you're the one who suggested a "quick google search", so i'm just pointing out that it fails. you still haven't provided any sources demonstrating long's notability. Bob A (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an isolated incident, I would believe that you are simply grossly mistaken and uninformed about this field. But given the fact that you are going around Wikipedia targeting professors of a specific political leaning (see, e.g., Walter Block) I think I am more than justified in pointing this behavior out to people who might otherwise take you seriously. The morgawr (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you incorporated some of that research you did into this article? If his work has been widely discussed by others in his field, let's see some citations. Binarybits (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in my defence, i never marked walter block's article as non-notable. the reason i'm doing this is that "anarcho"-capitalists are over-represented on wikipedia, and so i'm making sure that the articles about the ones who aren't notable are deleted (even if i nominate a few that aren't). your behaviour appears to be a violation of wp:AGF. Bob A (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Assume good faith" means just that. It is an assumption until it is rebutted. You are going around getting rid of articles about leading Anarcho-capitalists. These are not "minor" people, but the leading American adherents of this belief system. If you think the amount of content is unbalanced, then add more content for other people. If the articles suck, then either fix them or mark them up for lack of references. But, don't go around seeking the deletion of proper content dealing with an ideology that you don't like. Doing that turns Wikipedia as an ideological battle ground. The morgawr (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i said that my aim was the deletion of improper content. this discussion is irrelevant to this articles afd page. Bob A (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this is relevant is because things like your adding a not notable tag to the Block article, or your AfD request for this one are supposed to be based on a simple standard -- "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor". It seems that you do not follow this standard. That is a problem.The morgawr (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i did not add a notability tag to the block article; stop saying that i did. long might be more notable than the average professor as a liberal, but not, as far as i know, as a professor. please give a source showing that he is. Bob A (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The diff disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The morgawr (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the diff clearly says that i added the argument "importance", not "notability" or "notable". unless, of course, you're blind. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last $.02. Everyone knows my position, the rest of you have to make up your own minds. Long meets that standard no matter how you cut it. He is a senior faculty member at one of the two most prominent libertarian institutes in the country; he edits a journal; he has published books, is a prominent Aristotelian, etc. If you ask someone involved in academic publishing, such as myself, we can call around and confirm this (and I did.) Searching on Google Scholar (which is far from comprehensive), brings up a long list of citations for someone so young. This is all very obvious stuff. By the standards for "sources" posited by others in this debate, MOST LEADING SCHOLARS would not qualify for Wikipedia entries. Some people have said that they are concerned that there are too many articles on this group of scholars. But "too many articles" is not a notability standard. "Too many articles" is an argument for merging them into "Notable X's" and then linking their names to the one article.
he's listed as a senior faculty member at the mises institute, which is a fringe organisation within american libertarianism, which itself is a fringe movement. many such people don't have articles, and i'm quite sure that not all of them need to. the journal he edits is also with the mises institute, and accordingly is not very important. he hasn't published any books, though he's written a few, none of them notable. you keep saying that he's a prominent aristotelian and the like, but you haven't given a single source to that effect. Bob A (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I want to remind everyone that Wikipedia has an important impact on a person's ability to publish, that this particular group of scholars is politically controversial, and that their enemies have a history of getting personal. We are supposed to NPOV in our articles, and we should be NPOV in our evaluations of notability. The fact that people involved in this debate are potentially biased is relevant. So is the fact that some people seem to be contradicting past actions or applying their high standards of notability with partiality. People not involved in academic publishing might not be aware of the impact of this evaluation or of the nasty rivalries involved. Such knowledge would influence the evaluations of arguments posted on this page. Hence it is relevant. The morgawr (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's tantamount to a fallacious ad hominem argument.
Ad hominem is an attack on a person's character. The issue we are discussing is whether or not there is sufficient evidence for Long's notability. What I have said is not ad hominem. Per our own article: "Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence."
that's only one sense of the word. the technical sense refers to an argument (argumentum), and in fact, i specified "fallacious ad hominem argument". i didn't say that what you said was ad hominem, but that it suggested something that's tantamount to it. furthermore, this discussion doesn't depend on any of our personal witness. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion is about whether long is notable enough to have an article about him, not whether anyone is biased. we're all biased as hell politically, but that has nothing to do with whether long is notable. furthermore, this has nothing to do with "this particular group of scholars"; it has to do with long. Bob A (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said otherwise on your own talk page. When asked about your motives for recent questionable edits, you said:
...however, i am annoyed by wikipedians who are insistent that "anarcho"-capitalists be called anarchists, and that the ideologies be conflated, and by the fact that "anarcho"-capitalism and its proponents are over-represented.....

I have to say that I think this calls the propriety of this nomination into question. As I said at Talk:Roderick T. Long, it is pretty clear that this article subject is notable, and your mostly uncommented placement of various templates on the Long article and others discussing anarchocapitalists seem to be unwarranted behavior that isn't constructive in the process of growing and improving an encyclopedia. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i said otherwise than what? this is irrelevant to the discussion. Bob A (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't like the LvMI is totally irrelevant to whether or not Long is notable. It is entirely relevant to your claim that the LvMI should not be treated as source because it is not credible. If you impugn the credibility of the LvMI as a source, we have a right to evaluate your credibility in making this claim. I have examined you claims and found that you were wrong. The LvMI is not "fringe" in academia (the relevant group), nor are libertarians in general. Politicians like Ron Paul consider the LvMI extremely important, and most academics consider the scholarship coming out of LvMI affiliates to be good quality. In both Law and Economics the LvMI is turning out good scholars. Randy Barnett got his start with them, so did many of the promising young free market types getting turned out of George Mason. As I have pointed out previously, the requirement that we cannot consider any source affiliated with that person as evidence of notability is absurd. Were that true, I could not prove that any of the above persons were notable, despite the fact that no one in that specialty area would contest it. Hence your argument simply does not fly. The morgawr (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that the fact that i don't like the mises institute is irrelevant to whether long is notable was exactly part of my point. i never said that the mises institute shouldn't be treated as a credible source, and technically, that isn't even a claim; it's a preference. as far as i know (and i may be somewhat off), the mises institute is considered a crank organisation by most mainstream economists in much the same way that creationism is considered pseudoscientific within natural science. ron paul is very conservative compared to mainstream (as far as it is) american libertarianism. please cite a mainstream academic who considers the mises institute's scholarship to be of good quality. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Gene Epstein at Barron's (formerly the chief economist of the New York Stock Exchange)? In a review of a book by institute scholar (and editor of the Man, Economy and State study guide published by LvMI) Robert P. Murphy, he said, I only wish Sowell were as informed about the economics of the Austrian school as author Robert Murphy. While Basic Economics and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism work well as companion volumes, in the few cases where they seem to disagree—as in the discussion of money and business cycles—Murphy's version is the more trustworthy.[33] Again, we see your predisposition against LvMI coming up in this AfD. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Epstein? who're they? anyway, that's not directly related to the mises institute. Bob A (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Epstein is unquestionably notable, regardless of whether he has a Wikipedia article. And I don't know what you mean by "directly related to the mises institute" with regards to your challenge about "mises institute scholarship." What is "mises institute scholarship" save the work done by Mises scholars? DickClarkMises (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nothing, i supposed. Bob A (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He is more notable than the average professor. morgawr makes some good points also (but also some very bad ones). Hazillow (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without doubt. I've controlled google.books [34] [35], and scholar.google [36], [37], and they seem to attest he is sufficiently notable for WP:ACADEMICS.--Aldux (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per above. Sufficient external links and refs to lend him some notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionmix (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is not the sort of subject i really know, but claims to notability based on "he published an article with" or he contributes to blogs, or where the people citing have been citing as trivially as the ref from Stallman, make the whole thing look dubious. DGG (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. This non-admin closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the consensus expressed by others. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's Ice Cream[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Steve's Ice Cream

Steve's Ice Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I did a google search, "Steve's Ice Cream" -wikipedia, and came back with less than 3,500. The talkpage "gives" rationale to notability though.... PG Pirate 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Notable ice cream chain that's been mentioned in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. Also, Google results shouldn't be the sole rationale for deleting an article. --TBC !?! 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. JJL (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defunct but clearly influential and notable in its day. I also found a published book with a multi-page in-depth case study on the company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can pass WP:CORP with plenty of WP:RS coverage that says what they did. They are credited as innovators, especially for popularizing the mix-in. Mentions in Time, Nations Restaurant News (450 shops in 1989)], Books ([38] [39]). And that's only with a straight Google search on "Steve's Ice Cream". • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The nominator is right, the talk page implicitly states the notability of the subject. I understood that someone would come along and make the allegation about it not meeting the standards of WP:Note, that is why I included the following on the talk page:

There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
Look at the citations provided, articles in the Boston Globe and the New York Times.

The sources are reliable;
The Globe and the Times are considered to be extremely reliable.

The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
Most definitely secondary.

I generated none of the information (no WP:OR conflict), am not promoting the products (the company is closed), it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.

Other reasons that establish notability (also from talk page):

The company pretty much invented the "super premium" market segment in the ice cream industry, contemporary heirs to this market include Ben and Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs;

The concept of the mix-in which spawned a whole series of products and companies that still exist today, look at Coldstone Creamery;

It is not a biography of Steve Herrell, but a look at the company he founded.

The nominator has not shown that the article does not meet the standards of WP:Note or that it violates WP:Not.
--- Jeremy (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The included citations demonstrate this is clearly notable, and nominator's seeming use of the number of Google hits as a standard of notability is trumped by the quality of a small number of those hits. What is an acceptable number of Google results, by the way, if 3,500 does not meet it?--Canley (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article clearly establish notability. Nom should probably familiarize with WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of reliable sources that confirm the notability of this company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Sources always trump aggregate search results, and especially so in the case of defunct or historical entities. Seems like we're getting to the frozen wet stuff. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a hoax per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alexander Rota[edit]

Sir Alexander Rota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Suspected hoax as individual in question gets zero google hits. Roleplayer (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax.--TBC !?! 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a hoax, perpetrated by sockpuppets. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I couldn't find a thing to verify that this actually exists, nor does their full name produce any results. Delete as a hoax per nom and above. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, nearly nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smelly hoaxy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Über Strong Delete as hoax. Nothing to confirm notability/existence. Undeath (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Blueboy 96 06:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold P. Warren[edit]

Harold P. Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Harold P. Warren is not notable enough to have his own biographical article, as he is only known for his creation of the film, "Manos" The Hands of Fate. This article is not so much a biography of Warren's life, but rather only mentions his contributions to the film. All the information in this article is already stated in the film's article, therefore this article can be considered redundant. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to "Manos" The Hands of Fate. The film is a FA, and definitely notable; however, its writer has done virtually bupkis outside of the film's scope. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources here, and he's apparently done almost nothing outside of his involvement in this film. However, his involvement in a very notable film would likely make him worthy enough of an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep worst movie claim seems to be well-documented making him notable for writing, directing, and producing it. JJL (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Director, producer, and writer of a well-known, notable film.--TBC !?! 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under normal circumstances I'd call directing a single low-budget film with a limited theatrical release a pretty weak claim of notability. But "Manos" is far from normal circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. If Manos was an obscure flop, then I would agree with the nominator, but Manos was no ordinary flop. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge/Redirect per nom. I know that WP:BLP doens't apply (as he died) but the header "he is best remembered for writing, directing, and producing the the worst films of all time" jumped out on me, and due to basic fairness and decency such an article shouldn't go. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are you saying he is NOT best remembered for Manos? Or that Manos is not objectively describable as "one of the worst films of all time" (a judgement that isn't ours, but of our sources)? See the lead for Ed Wood. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. I'm saying such an intro is inhumane, unjust, etc...That's all I'm saying. I know nothing about him or the film. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's possible that some of the stuff in the Manos article could be trimmed. Is this really all there is to say about him? Seems I remember reading more details of his life in some schlockfest issue of Fangoria or whatnot. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Involvement in Manos meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manos is definitely notable film. But I don't think that Warren, himself, is notable at all. Aside from his creation of Manos, nothing else is really known about him aside from the fact that he was a fertilizer salesman. I think a redirect to the Manos article would be the next best thing to a deletion of this article. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly looks notable enough to me, I'm not sure why we'd want to get rid of this one. RFerreira (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJL and Dhartung The Dominator (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGowan (Scottish footballer)[edit]

Michael McGowan (Scottish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy notability guidelines for football/soccer players. Franky843 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above - fails notability--Egghead06 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Number, and doesn't assert notability. John Hayes^talk 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Scottish lower leagues aren't notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. robwingfield ^«T•C» 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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