Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 27

< January 26	January 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.

Redirected as a plausible search term, preserving the material in the page history for potential recreation at a later point or for incorporation into The Departed. (non-admin closure) User:Dorftrottel 12:52, January 29, 2008

Billy Costigan[edit]

Violates WP:FICT: written almost entirely in in-universe style, with virtually no evidence of real-world notability. Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. I'm also nominating Oliver Queenan, another character from The Departed who's even less notable. Terraxos (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as hopeless fancruft. User:Dorftrottel 12:42, January 29, 2008~~ Strike that. I'm going to boldly redirect the page to The Departed, as was done with Oliver Queenan. The character names are somewhat plausible search terms imo, and should exist as redirects. User:Dorftrottel 12:45, January 29, 2008

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyrium[edit]

Does not establish sufficient out-of-universe notability, and there is a lack of reliable sources per WP:RS. Even the article admits that 'details are sketchy'. Crystallina (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Slavlin (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. None of the keep arguments were rebuffed by the delete arguments, plus WP:HEY applies. Mango juice^talk 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page 44[edit]

The page is a mess. Questionable notability. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in the discussion for Page 44 why the article shouldn't be deleted, a wikipedia user who previosly tried to delete the article agreed to remove the delete article tag after my explanation. LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a Speedy delete. This is AfD. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite A7 material but still doesn't seem to have enough notability yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and a mess. Please look at other articles next time. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of trying to get the article deleted, we work together to clean it up? LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus is so far Delete. Wikipedia works by consensus. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator has removed the afd template. restored by me. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I really don't know what to do to make it acceptable, i would need some help, i could get lots more information. LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't remove the AFD tag. It's against policy to do so. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

got it LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the article is a mess, but they do seem to have attained a degree of notability. Cleanup and improved referencing is what this baby needsBeeblbrox (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Don't bite the newcomer. Writing an encyclopedic article is challenging, and no one is going to get it exactly right the first time out.Beeblbrox (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep the article is undoubtably "a mess" but we don't delete articles just because they are not pretty. Notability is borderline - it probably fails WP:MUSIC (unsigned, no chart success etc) however we can't completely discount either the TV appearance or the competition wins although I would like to see these properly sourced ASAP. nancy ^(talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability questionable, but no one has addressed it either way and TV/reviews lead me toward maybe. The article isn't that bad at this point, and in anycase, a badly written article isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–They appear to have had coverage in multiple third-party sources; look here. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 2 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County Public Library[edit]

Non-notable library, fails WP:N. A google search reveals few sources from outside of Norfolk County. Yes, one of the buildings is a historical site, but that doesn't make the entire library system notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N as notability is not inherited from the potentially notable building. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library seems relevant to this discussion and demonstrates that public libaries need to be unusual in some way to be notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no feeling one way or another. Just wanted to add that this was a failed PROD. I deprodded the article since it was AfDed just last month (by me) when it was Simcoe Public Library. The results of that AfD were to rename and repurpose to cover the entire library system. Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. Collectonian (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/ Norfolk County, Ontario. DMighton (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of organizations deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge The main article on Norfolk county is the place for mention of the public library, but, like many other articles linked to that page, it is not notable enough to have it's own article. There are about 95 articles about the various features of this one county in Ontario, and almost all of them are not notable enough to have their own entry.Beeblbrox (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I am unconvinced that library systems (as opposed to an individual library) are not inherently encyclopedic considering that the library system in Oslo, "Deichmanske", has an entry in my Norwegian general purpose paper encyclopedia. Well, maybe this town is smaller, and the article is short enough to fit comfortably in with the county article so I guess merging is an option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Esrati[edit]

This guy is running for office, and has created the most repugnant puff piece possible, replete with links to his campaign website, his businesses and a host of other non-independent websites. Of course, he has no real links, and even if he did, this page is so awful it would have to be rewritten completely. Fibbing Bear (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with you entirely. Wikipedia doesn't need to host the "Esrati for Congress" webpage. If he wins on March 4, then he can assert notability on being the Democratic nominee. Right now, he's a little guy with big dreams and a bigger ego. Mandsford (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and mandsford. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This page is pretty bad. Would it qualify for WP:CSD#A7? --L. Pistachio (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Move to /dev/null. Andante1980 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straight up vanity article; this is not an encyclopedia entry. Gromlakh (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...its like someone's bio in the alumni newsletter trying to get support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotech (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 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 Merge and redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Middle School (Lincoln, Nebraska)[edit]

Non-notable middle school. Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. --Nobody can see me 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its district. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aardvark Merge per Anteater. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Aardvark merge"... That cracked me up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lincoln Public Schools per above. Don't see any non-trivial coverage from reliable sources: [1]. cab (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. Article as it stands provides no evidence of independent notability. If appropriate sources become available in the future, a standalone article could be recreated. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. agree with talk Victuallers (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 2 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, with a redirect of Kenneth W. Hagin to Kenneth E. Hagin. Keeper | 76 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth W. Hagin[edit]

Notability is not inherited - in this case literally, he's the son of Kenneth E. Hagin. No evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - any Google search will show you just how incredibly notable this guy is, especially in charismatic/pentecostal circles. --Goo2you (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been demonstrated. David D. (Talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability doesn't mean that you're well known to a small circle of people. Gromlakh (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "small circle of people"? Are you serious? According to Barna surveys, one out of every four Protestant churches in the United States (23%) is a charismatic congregation. 36% of Americans now claim to be charismatic or Pentecostal Christians. A slight majority of all born again Christians (51%) is charismatic. Nearly half of all adults who attend a Protestant church (46%) are charismatic. Notable. --Goo2you (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it should not be hard to find a verifiable source that demonstrates he is notable. You comment above is original research. David D. (Talk) 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- This man has written numerous books that you can buy on respected bookstores such as Amazon.com as well as others. He pastors an 8000 member church RHEMA Bible church that he started in 1985 (Oct 20 to be exact) and his father never was apart of the leadership of the church nor ever preach at at a church service (He did do seminars in the same building but they were not RBC services). He has a international television program that his dad has never been on RHEMA Praise that can be found on most religious networks in the US and DirecTV and Dish Network. But I guess he never really did anything give me a break. The fact that he is even considered for deletion just shows how stupid that this site is, just cause someone dislikes a person they can delete him if enough people who admire him in five days don't realize it and comment on him. What about someone actually doing research. I believe that he has around 3 million books in print world wide. There are many people on wiki that haven't done half of what this man has done in his almost 50 years of ministry (September 08 will be his 50th year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelj1987 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Mikelj1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - per nom. No notability proofs are provided. Dekisugi (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep given that there are some sources on Google News Archive [2] showing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair number of those are in connection with his unquestionably notable father;a merge would probably be fine. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I have reviewed many of the statements and I try to stay as neutral as possible on issues until I have done my own research so I may decide for myself. I have come to know that Kenneth W Hagin has made a statement of his own and continues to not be a man that follows in the footsteps of his well known father but has followed the path that God has given for him to do. Yes his father was well known for the message of faith but Kenneth W Hagin is and has become known for the message of hope that with an attitude of I can not be defeated then I will not quite. As his father traveled the world in teaching faith. It was Kenneth W. Hagin that had built a faith empire that is engulfing the world today. He struggled in forming a world renowned school of ministry that has graced 15 different continents and trains thousands a year to fulfill their calling all the while staying in the background as his Father was in the public eye. He formed a publication company that is responsible for hundreds of teaching and self edification material yearly. He has built a ministry that ministers to the nations with several hundred employees along with a television and radio program. He pastors a church that he built from the ground up in Broken Arrow Oklahoma that has thousands attending weekly. Kenneth W Hagin also has started RHEMA Ministerial Association International that overseas thousands of Pastors and Churches world wide and continues to grow. All the while continuing to travel throughout the world ministering the gospel. With all that I have learned of this man I would say not to delete his information but add to it. Do a autobiography of his ups and downs that we may learn as pastors, business men, and fathers. The statement of his life has shown that with great adversity pushing you against the tides of life you can overcome pre-judgement of individuals not focusing on the concerns of others but staying focus on the ministry at hand and keeping a steady hand to the plow you can prosper even in the midst of national economic crise. You can move forward with no fear of failure even as there are others who fail around you. You can continue to bring excellence to the name of God while others seem to diminish even the authority of God. Kenneth W Hagin continues even now to do much in the silence of the worlds eyes as all the glory needs to focus on God and not him. So I say how can we delete this as he has made his stamp into history world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klepacz (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC) — Klepacz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you do not want this to be deleted the most productive thing would be to improve article. Since you are new to wikipedia you might want to familiarise yourself with the original research guidelines. It is not enough to know these things are true they must also be notable (see Wikipedia:Notability) and verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) contributions. David D. (Talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability asserted, and I can't find anything in a Google search that really does establish notability. Torc2 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't locate any sources, and notability isn't inherited. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:53, 4 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dean[edit]

Notability + No sources/references but mostly notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO. Terraxos (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin International Church[edit]

PROD was contested with a comment as follows:

There is no proof that this church is "non-notable" and there is no parent organization page that this "church" or page would be redirected to.

A 200-hundred member church is probably not notable, and redirecting to the stated parent organization, the Evangelical Free Church, resulted in my edit being reverted by the creator. Delete.

Incidentally, I am a member of the Evangelical Free Church myself. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organization that you speak of that was "stated" in the article is not even the same. I suggest you check the sources for further details before assuming that the GERMAN EVANGELISCHE FREIKIRCHLIGE ORGANISATION and the America Evangelical Freechurches are the same thing. This church is notable within the english speaking world in Germany and Europe and you have no proof that it is not other your own opinion, which in this case is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JujuTea (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we've had people come in from Germany who said it was indeed the same denomination. But as for the notability of this local church, the onus of proof is on you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much a spam page. No real assertation of notability in any event. CitiCat^♫ 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 200 attendees at a church does not make it notable. No other assertion of notability. no third party sources. jonathon (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per jonathon. It is not the burden of the nominator (or anyone else) to demonstrate a lack of notability. The burden is on the author (or other person who wants the article to be kept) to demonstrate that the subject has notability. This has not been done. Gromlakh (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Karna Roy[edit]

This article is about a person who has, according to the article, filed a number of lawsuits against a diverse group of entities. There are no secondary sources given in the article - all of the references are to the cases themselves. If there's nothing else out there, then there's no reason to believe that this topic meets our fundamental notability criterion - that there are multiple sources of information independent of the subject --B (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wow - somebody arguing that primary sources are worse than secondary sources! You don't see that every day. This article is perfectly appropriate for wikipedia; this person has a notoriety in certain segments of society, which is the same for most of our biographical articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I made no such valuative judgment. Wikipedia's general notability guideline is that a subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in secondary sources. There are no secondary sources here. That has nothing to do with a comparison between the relative worth of primary sources vs secondary sources. --B (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snide or personal; my comment was badly worded. You point to a weakness in wikipedia: the desire to avoid anything smacking of independent research means that primary sources (e.g., the article says he filed lots of lawsuits - and the references back that up with the actual lawsuits) are disregarded, but secondary sources (e.g., an article somewhere written second-hand about the lawsuits) are considered top notch. This is backward. I suspect, however, that your afd actually is based on the idea that the filing of these lawsuits does not raise KKR to being article worthy - there, I would disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if the news media doesn't care enough to have an article on this guy, Wikipedia doesn't need one either. Simply filing a lawsuit doesn't make you notable. --B (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so; wikipedia has articles about lots of things - Pokemon characters, tiny American communities, obscure sports figures, etc. etc. - that have no linkable news media articles about them. If "lack of news articles" means "end of wikipedia article", then it's time for the Night of the long knives. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Night of the long knives has a long list of references. So it would seem to meet the general criterion of substantial coverage in secondary sources. Can you find any secondary sources about Kamal Karna Roy? --B (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope (unless you count my blog, based on an actual lawsuit I read. However, blogs don't count - and rightly so.) The point is that we have the *actual lawsuits* rather than somebody else's mumblings *about* those lawsuits - and yet that knowledge is completely discounted as a basis for deciding on the article's suitability. Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it strikes me as a good idea. If no reliable source independent of the subject feels it worth covering, it's not an encyclopedic topic - it's unmaintainable. Your userpage says that you are a newspaper reporter. Have you or has your company written about this person? Has anyone outside of message boards and blogs written about him? --B (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. My point is that this fact shouldn't in itself be a wikipedia-killer, above and beyond the notability of the topic itself. (It's funny that I'm defending him, since he and/or supporter(s) beseiged my blog with so much glop after I wrote about him that I had to block them!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - anyone can file a lawsuit. Filing a large number of them, by itself, does not make one particularly notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support notability. The presence of a large number of lawsuits is not sufficient to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is not extremely notable, but there are several primary sources listed and a few secondaries. In a Google search, I found several results from Yahoo! news and some other places. Seems notable enough to me. Gromlakh (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide links to the Yahoo sources? Right now, the article gives zero secondary sources. Adding them would settle the issue. --B (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, when I google with site:yahoo.com, all I find is copy/pastes of the Wikipedia article on Yahoo answers - see [3] A copy/paste of a Wikipedia article doesn't make someone notable. --B (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. No reliable secondary sources have devoted substantial coverage to him. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete All sources are primary thus failling WP:N. Has serious WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 3 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 (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Blalock[edit]

Seemingly notable only for his involvement in United States v. Eichman, failing WP:BIO1E. Only reliable sources I've turned up mention him only in connection with that case. Jfire (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some sources for his more recent activities [4] [5]. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; in light of the tighter rules on biographic articles, I'm tending towards delete. Building a biography through newspaper appearances is not one of the better things Wikipedia does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't received any coverage from reliable sources in his own right. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per the news sourcing not all of which focues direclty on United States v. Eichman or barring that merge to United States v. Eichman. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 3 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 transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World in Conflict honours system[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lists of achievements are considered unsuitable. Contested prod. -- pb30<talk> 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., which says it all. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete exactly per nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there is anything that is specifically notable about the honors system for this game, I would put it in the game article. Can't see how there would be enough info besides the gameguide info to be on its own. Slavlin (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page because the World in Conflict page itself has already been labelled as too long. I can see how this article can be interpreted as a game-guide, but that was not my intention. I wanted to add the details of the medals in the game as it is an important part of multiplayer mode. Mjb1981 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That could be a reasonable way to go, but a better focus for the information would be why the medals matter and what has been said about that. I don't see that could leave enough for a separate article though. Slavlin (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiki and delete Despite the very best of intentions and being well presented, this is the kind of material which is better suited to GameFAQs, for instance this Warhawk statistics guide covers exactly the same kind of material. Once you've gone past the point of summarizing gameplay, press reception etc. you've gone too far into 'by players for players' territory. Players who want this kind of information can find it on the sites like GameFAQs which specialize in it. Someone another 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Junior High School[edit]

Junior high school. No assertion of notability. Recommend Delete or Merge to appropriate district article. Dchall1 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete, per WP:NOTE _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it does get merged - where would it get merged to? D.M.N. (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the school was closed in 1985, could be merged with the article of the current school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.198.248 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if there is any suitable merge target. Terraxos (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can figure out which of the many Vancouver districts this school was a part of. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, and nominator has been blocked. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMRA[edit]

Delete WMRA reads like an advertisement and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia project. Markanthony101 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Rewrite - Rewrite the article so that it doesn't read like an ad. The article is of a licensed radio station, a station owned by a US university. It would be silly to delete such an article. - Flatsky (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do we need to have articles for every minor radio station in the country. Would Denis Diderot have bothered with such an innane topic in his Encyclopedie? Markanthony101 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Licensed radio stations, especially established full-powered ones, are considered notable because they tend to serve large territories that include large numbers of people. A 10,000 watt station like WMRA is hardly minor. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a "minor radio station". As noted in the article, it reaches a large portion of Virginia, and transmits at around 10 kW. Compare KUSF for an example of something that actually is a minor radio station. Our inclusion standard is currently to include all licensed stations, though - it's much more useful (and consistent) than only including stations which meet some further standard. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All FCC licensed stations are inherently notable per Zetawoof; the fact that it reads like an ad can be fixed. Try tagging with {{advertisement}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets notability; article quality is not a standard for deletion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how this is an ad. I agree with Flatsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.198.248 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licenced radio stations are notable. The article stub has no promotional content. It describes the station, its frequencies, and its coverage area. No obvious POV problems. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nominated by now-indefinitely blocked user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep FCC-licensed stations are Inherently notable. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Borneo Band of Durham Army Cadet Force[edit]

Delete NN organisation (the ACF as a whole is notable, individual units are not) Mayalld (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organisation. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ORG. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Dowling --Nobody can see me 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete unless significant coverage in proper reliable sources can be proved, the article will not pass the traditional notability definition as it stands as of now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah Acres[edit]

Strong Delete - absolutely no reason why this should remain on an encyclopedia. Truly awful article. Markanthony101 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with this article. This may be of interest: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and WP:HOPELESS. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Not a great article, but there is nothing irredeemable here. It certainly meets notability standards. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment - The real question we should be asking is whether something like this belongs on an encyclopedia. Markanthony101 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it satisfies the relevant policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS, and if it asserts that the subject is notable for some reason supported by sources... then, yes, it does. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I note that some cleaning up might be warranted, notability seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nominated by now-indefinitely blocked user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep per SchuminWeb. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't matter if it was nominated by an indef blocked user or not, we have to discuss the article based on policy based reasoning. I was searching for sources that can be found in the article, and I only found one that is considered Reliable for to be considered for WP:N. The other sources include passing news mentions, trivial mentions (about the baby pool, student who died of shock in the resort) travel guides, yellow pages etc. Secret ^account 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - delete, per Secret's reasoning above and lack of notability. The nominator should not have been able to nominate this page for deletion, but since he has we have to consider it fairly. Terraxos (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is another case where references are probably available, but not on the Internet. Perhaps an editor who lives in the area can see what references are available at a local library or in back issues of the local newspaper. I fixed the formatting of the existing references. --Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion has been contested. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Wrongly_accused_of_sockpuppetry.3B_consequent_case_was_illegally_handled_and_wrongfully_executed

In fact, proposing this and other articles for deletion brought me to the powerful wrath of Mr. Schumin's friends. I say the admin hierarchy has no right to do what it has done. Have a look for yourself to see just how corrupt and downright wrong that decision was. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. --Veritas (talk) 16:18, 2 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) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelfa Volpes[edit]

Non-notable person. Wikipedia does not need an entry for every "News of the Weird" story reported on. Ipsenaut (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting but no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, WP:NOT#NEWS nither. Secret ^account 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the very definition of WP:NOT#NEWS. Non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected somewhere more suitable. Will ^(talk) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Prime Minister of the United Kingdom[edit]

Totally non-notable and useless article - no material that's not covered much better anywhere else. The removal of a PROD tag was by the creator and totally unexplained - as per usual :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus on poor sourcing is spot on: the sole reference mentioned Superflat Monogram as an example of corporate patronage of modern artists, but not necessarily as a notable piece of art. ~~Will redirect to Takashi Murakami.~~ ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superflat Monogram[edit]

A non-notable ad campaign that is poorly sourced. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MZMcBride. β^_command 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scott (poet)[edit]

Non-notable individual. References are all self-provided. Closest to notablity appears to be publications. Article was tagged for notability near its creation in 2006 which was removed without discussion shortly after. Search for sources doesn't turn up anything aside from other self-published/affiliated material. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of author-related deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have been introduced into the article thanks to User:Dl2000. In my opinion, without ever having heard of him before, I see no question that he is notable as creator of numerous spoken records and author of several books. Royalbroil 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album releases on labels such as Exit (effectively via A&M) and Blonde Vinyl, therefore that aspect of his career meets WP:MUSIC (plus international touring is indicated). Additional secondary references now located and included. Cleanup and additional secondary sources are needed, but those issues do not warrant deletion. Dl2000 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the added references are reliable and that they establish notability as outlined in WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 03:30, 5 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, no reliable sources that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N. Sama Iyengar[edit]

Biography of an Indian jurist who, during his lifetime, attained the highest position of "Registrar of the Mysore High court in Bangalore", which I believe is too local to make him sufficiently notable for an article. CIreland (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem sufficiently notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been corrected. The biography is of an Indian jurist whose highest position was "District and Sessions Judge". Along the way he was "Registrar of the Mysore High Court" and interestingly appointed by Sir Darcy Reilly, the last British Chief Justice of the Mysore High Court. There is much other interesting information about the jurist contained in the webpage reference which was omitted because the plagiarism bot kept complaining! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargursrihari (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Legacy[edit]

Contested prod, concern was No assertion of notability. No external reviews on imdb. Removal reason was "claim of award and showings at festivals mean this should at least get an AFD". Stand by the original concern; delete. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is certainly lacking, but the film has won a bunch of awards (and they are listed, just no citations for each). Featured Zina Bethune (easily notable) and Brie Gabrielle (less so but notable), according to IMDB. All this together seems to cross the threshold and make this an article that needs fixing instead of deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please say what elements of WP:NF you believe it qualifies under? Having notable actors is not a criterion, and the awards criterion is for major awards such as an Academy Award or Palme D'or. Jfire (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not indicate that the film has won any awards, just that it was nominated for the Media Access Awards (apparently an award given for portrayal of people with disabilities in film and television, rather than a general film award). The film has appeared only in some relatively low-profile film festivals, its cast members are not extremely famous, and it has received very little media coverage from independent sources. Consequently, I don't believe it has achieved notability yet per WP:MOVIE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources, probably not notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino television directors[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT, a mere collection of redlinks Hu12 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care I created this as a compromise because anons kept putting it as text on Category:Filipino television directors. eg The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nowhere in WP policy or guidelines does it say that lists are to be deleted just because they have lots of redlinks. Improve the article by adding information to it, such as why the director is notable. Hmains (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it seems that the list was created to make the fanboys happy, perhaps if we could somehow monitor or protect the category from anons then we could safely delete this list. Otherwise keep the list until doesn't serve its purpose anymore--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. It may be a fanboy project, but we can make good use of it by editing it. Refer to List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. Starczamora (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was, as the creator admits, originally a category, and was only created to stop people adding unencyclopaedic material to that category. The solution is not to create this relatively useless list, but to protect the category. (Is that actually possible?) Terraxos (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and revert back to catagory as origionaly intendended--Hu12 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is like a routine "nationality + occupation" list. --Howard the Duck 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no point in having lists of red links. They serve no purpose at all. MSGJ (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lists of red links (to notable persons) are valuable as a framework to be extended. In the early days of WP there were many such lists that are now all blue-linked. It's one of th ways that WP grows. Plainly, some television directors are notable and many US examples are already in WP. There is an argument to removing individual persons if not notable, but to say there cannot be a list of Filipino television directors at all smells of racism as it implies that simply being Filipino prevents notability. Mrhawley (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 18:32,4 Feb, 2008

Nampa Gateway Center[edit]

This one is kind of tricky... sure, there are a few sources out there, but except for some blurbs on the mall's JCPenney store, I see nothing dated later than 2006. The only other sources I could find were press releases listing possible future tenants and other speculative information. So far, this is about as complete as the article can get. Also, the lack of sources after 2006 is actually somewhat puzzling... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least two sources about the now completed center from 2008 [6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 31 January 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)} 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable outdoor shopping center. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lack of sources isn't really surprising in this case. When a construction is planned, there is a flurry of news. During construction, things are usually quiet (if all is going well that is). Upon opening the news reports begin again. As the article states, "Completion is estimated by Spring of 2008". If it is accepted that it's role in revitalization lends notability, I propose we let this one ride and see what happens by middle of summer? At that time we can give it a procedural AfD to determing its fate. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the size. I share the concerns raised by Ten Pound Hammer. Maybe tag with an expand or leave it as a future project. I suspect that once the opening gets closer, there will be more sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The subject doesn't actually exist yet, and is only a planned construction; and it doesn't seem a particularly notable one at the moment, judging by how little coverage it's received. If more sources are written about it as it nears completion, then it can be re-created, but we don't need this article just yet. Terraxos (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't exist? Here are two stories about it from the Idaho Press-Tribune and the Idaho Statesman regarding its current existence [8][9].

Keep - As mentioned above, not only does it exist, (contrary to "delete" voters above), it's the subject of secondary independent sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. Being part of Nampa's revitalization is further evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [10][11][reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, with no prejudice for recreation if reliable sources can be found. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Jensen[edit]

I, as the creator of the article, think that he is notable as a stand-up comedian and actor, but it was tagged as csd and I would rather have consensus decide this article's fate rather than one admin. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't a matter of opinion - the guidelines are set out in Notability (people). The article doesn't show that he meets them. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone could translate the many websites about him in Danish then I'm sure he would be cerified notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability via reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not notable, but I commend the nominator for nominating the article for AfD instead of just removing the csd RogueNinja_talk 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep until it is shown that none of the 166 hits on google news and over 30,000 on google are reliable sources or more than trivial mentions. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read WP:V, in particular, the burden of proof section. RogueNinja_talk 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as soon as you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion :o) --Paularblaster (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I quote: "## Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" RogueNinja_talk 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you somehow missed "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed": if you don't do that first, you can't know whether it fails WP:N or not. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have to do that. Its a list of reasons. The article needs to only meet one reason, not all of them. RogueNinja_talk 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you do have to do that, as recommended by Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination: "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." --Paularblaster (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR Resource Library[edit]

I've noticed this was at AfD before, but it wasn't much of a discussion (closed with single !vote of speedy delete?), so decided against Speedy G4 to give it more of a chance. The issues here are notability and a lack of independent references. Also compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR (programming language) (2nd nomination) Marasmusine (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, nn pascal library. 1,810 ghits. Only 2 pages of google results, I think alot of those hits are from forums. Closely resembles (to me anyways,) previously deleted stuff. No assertion of notability except used for RuneScape cheating and "SCAR can also be used for making games aswell as scripts for runescape." Heavily debatable, no sourcing, don't think there ever will be. (Weak delete since I am the nom of the orig afd and both SCAR (pl) afds, don't want to seem like I'm on a vendetta here, I just think they are nn.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck it under software since it was an includes library, but is that really the place to put it? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given lack of sources indicating wider notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources; no assertion of notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This probably could be prodded based on the deletion noted in the nom. Slavlin (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black ambient[edit]

Not a single source to back up the existence of this genre, much confusion as to what "black ambient" actually is, seems to be an original researched extension of dark ambient; little more than POV. Since is survived the first AfD, it still has had not a single reference added - it may as well be made up. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe, and can source, that the genre term exists. However, there is no authoritative source to actually describe the music and no-one agrees on what is meant by the term. Further to this, I have come across no reliable sources whatsoever for the inclusion of any of the bands. Despite having cleaned up the article, it is still just original research and deserves at best mention on the dark ambient page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Here's a source to prove it exists: Last.fm. Here's more proof (you'll find many results referring to this music here: Yahoo! Search. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last.FM cannot be used as a legitimate source as general content is user-edited and tags themselves are not moderated (hence, Paris Hilton at the top of the 'brutal death metal' table). You may as well cite Wikipedia itself as a source. Your second link is to a search engine, which confirms your search term is used on the 'Net. However, many of these hits in fact link to things like 'black/ambient metal' and it is far from clear that this is what the article is about. This in fact is precisely the reason why it is up for deletion. You need a genuine reliable source; in this case a book or commercially published magazine would be appropriate. But you'd also need to justify why the genre is in fact notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Proof of its existence alone may only warrant a mention on the dark ambient page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmetalbaz makes an excelent point, and it's the exact reason for this AfD - nothing reliable to back up this genre. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term exists, but no RS provided. Lugnuts (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DeleteSpartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Delight[edit]

Tagged as non-notable since September 2007. There are also no reliable sources in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --nyc171 (talk) 15:03, 1 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. We can't go on unverified claims. If the right sources are found, feel free to re-create. Tyrenius (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Almera[edit]

Tagged as non-notable since September 2007. There are also no reliable sources in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark with {{Cleanup}} —xanderer (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvement. He was inlcuded in a list of notable artists on the Lowbrow (art movement) page, so I started a page for him to eliminate the red link. I asked for help on that talk page, but to no avail. I believe he is notible, however, there is a lack of independent online sources to confirm this. I think there are non-online sources that would help this article but don't posses any of them personally Pepperjack (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A A Baig & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The company does not seem to be notable, and with only 40 employees, not very big either. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and discussion in page on right. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing about this company to distinguish it from all the other accounting firms out there. Prod tag was removed via misuse of the undo function, with no reason to keep the article supplied. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give some more time I feel some more time should be given so that the poster may modify it as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.131.2 (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ferrero[edit]

Tagged as non-notable since September 2007. There are also no reliable sources in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:16, 1 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Products Corporation[edit]

no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't listed. It is listed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.M.N. (talk • contribs)

Delete unless evidence of notability via reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I feel strongly that this company is notable, I guess no one really writes about bassoon manufacturers. However, there are plenty of other music topics I have seen where no major reliable source exists, yet the article always stays after an AfD nom. So I don't know what to do... Bassgoonist T C 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little substance to the article, despite being 10 months old; only 2 inbound links from other music-related Wiki articles. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:04, 1 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. jj137 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit.app[edit]

Tagged as non-notable last month. No sources seem to be added to the article, I therefore feel that the subject does not satisfy inclusion into Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources and non-notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan S. Higby[edit]

Fails notability criteria of WP:BIO. Googling author's name only gets about 30 hits which are all sales listings of his books or unrelated. Googling his books' titles also yields a limited number of hits (100 - 200) which again are all sales related sites. I could find no proof that any of the listed movies exist. Official website does not even mention him and appears to be completely unrelated. No reviews of his work in general or his published books/movies appear to exist. All in all, it's extremely doubtful any reliable secondary sources have devoted significant coverage to him. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of author-related deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror XIX[edit]

The page before contained a completely fake plot section. It is likely that such an episode will air (because there is an annual Treehouse of Horror episode), but absolutely nothing is confirmed. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a hoax, that's all there is to it. Gran² 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or crystal balling Doc Strange (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current version doesn't have all the nonsense that was in the original article, but it's a hoax. Due to the writer's strike, articles about this season's upcoming episodes are questionable; let alone some idiot's ideas for next season's Simpsons episodes might be. Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it is possible and probable, as it's become a tradition for Groenig and company, but words like "possible," "probable," and "future" scream WP:CRYSTAL. Wait till something is actually known before this is recreated. Redfarmer (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but in fairness to the editor who created the article this must not be classified as a hoax. Crystal-balling, yes, because XIX hasn't been announced yet as an episode. But the article clearly indicates that it's about a possible/probable episode, so that means it's not a hoax. Doesn't mean it needs an article yet, either, of course. I retract my earlier comment as I didn't realize the current version is edited down from an obviously made-up story list. But WP:CRYSTAL still applies to the current version, anyway. Assuming Wikipedia still allows episode articles come the fall, it can be recreated if and when this episode is produced and either officially announced or broadcast.23skidoo (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling. Like what others have said, consider re-creating the article when the episode airs and can be sourced. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until details are announced. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was recently reworded. I think that an annually occurring episode should have a stub. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No episodes from next season have been announced yet. The article even says it: "potential name of a possible future episode". While I have no doubt that the annual episode will be back (unless this retarted writers strike continues for several more months), this article shouldn't exist until the episode is confirmed and a air date announced. TJ Spyke 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke and others. I'll note further that the series of episodes has its own article, Treehouse of Horror (series) (a Featured Article), where mention of upcoming episodes, trends, the impact of the strike, or whatever, could be mentioned. A standalone article for one episode fails WP:CRYSTAL, at least for now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punk-A-Low[edit]

NN band, no sources given (the only link is to a my space page that fails WP:N). A quick Google search yields nothing. meshach (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTE. A my-space page doesn't establish someone's notability. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to see this being mentioned in reliable publications. --neonwhite user page talk 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Non-notable and a myspace page doesn't cut it for me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Lecter[edit]

Delete, there is absolutely nothing in this article that is not said in the novel or film articles.--The Dominator (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It requires huge clean-up. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it can be merged into List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. The character does appear in two books and a film, but it's a very minor appearance. All that is known is that she is the younger sister of Hannibal Lecter and that she was cannabalised at the end of WWII. This is already mentioned in the existing articles.--The Dominator (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. Article isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but she does deserve some mention. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Article does need a bit of work and expansion. Mischa was a fairly notable character in the series. I suppose it could be merged, although if its because everything about the character could be said in article for the novel they appeared in, then what about Buffalo Bill's article or even Will Graham's? And in the future, it'd be nice if I could have been notified of its deletion by the nominator and not some bot since I was the one who created the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, you just gave a good reason as to why it should be merged. "Notable character in the series" A character has to be notable on its own and not just within the series. The only characters who pass that in the Hannibal series is Hannibal himself and possibly Starling.--The Dominator (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. (An article which has problems of its own, like the total lack of references, but as long as it exists this should go there.) Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the others. This fictional character has not received significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nominator, slight clarification of position.--The Dominator (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Szajda[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO—significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Visor (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs more input from notable sources as United Artists or Broadway's or such. Otherwise I go with Visor. No big deal, just work on it or as an director will say on scene to extras - keep busy! greg park avenue (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be fairly notable, article needs a rewrite and reliable sources, but the actor seems notable.--The Dominator (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "seems notable". Any proofs/references? Visor (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "seems" I don't know too well, but he has several google hits and seems to have had multiple speaking roles in mainstream films.--The Dominator (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at his IMDb Profile and you'll see that all his roles are minor. See also WP:GHITS & WP:DIRECTORY. Visor (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is notoriously incomplete and inaccurate. It is not the arbiter of notability for actors. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how it's a violation of the latter, but I really don't care enough to go out of my way to look for sources.--The Dominator (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. His role in Under the Tuscan Sun meets the nominator's cited significant roles in notable films. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If his role of Pawel in this movie is significant, why his character has not been mentioned in plot? Visor (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean in the wikipedia article on the film, he plays the foremost of the "Polish workers" referred to collectively; his character is also the main protagonist of a romantic subplot as detailed in this review. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my older prod. Unless expanded with more references, he doesn't seem notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched google. The only evidence of notability I could find was here, where his photograph is used to illustrate the article about EncoresNYC, in which the broadway play he was the star of was described. And here, where YM magazine did an Aww Yeah! (heart-throb article) about him, and here, here, here, and [12], where Broadway World features articles about him and the plays he is in, oh, and here, where CNET Networks Business: BNET interviews him. And then there's here, where Hollywood Reporter tells how he will be "co-starring" in the 2008 HBO seven-part miniseries: Generation Kill. He appeared speaking Polish while timing a speedskater in an AT&T commercial during the 2002 Winter Olympics. In 2005, He played "Ricky" in Venom. He played "College Guy" in Hope & Faith: Do I Look Frat In This? In 2007, he played "Sean" in Death Without Consent. Interestingly, there appears to be a likely-notable dancer in Poland by this name as well. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:03, 5 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 by User:SGGH, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy crow[edit]

Clearly a hoax. None of it makes any sense. First page of ghits all for people's nicknames and restaurants, etc--no birds. LeSnail (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - clearly a fake. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 (vandalism), clearly a hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3, total hoax Doc Strange (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Narbut[edit]

No assertion of notability. 5 English ghits, none notable. Somewhat more in Russian, but none appear to be substantive. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for coverage in the English Wikipedia, however it's possible that there is notable information in the Russian Wikipedia article. Travellingcari (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly a notable poet (Acmeism was a major movement in Russian poetry). He has a biography in Russian here [13] plus an article on Wikipedia.ru. Incidentally, "Vladimir Narbut" brings considerably more than 5 Google hits. --Folantin (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I admit I may have used the wrong google search. I'm not disputing the Russian sources since I can't read them well enough, do you think there's enough English coverage to warrant an article in the English Wiki or should he be mentioned in the context of acmeism? I didn't see the English articles being substantive enough to support an article, but I admit it could have been a bad call on my part. Let's see what others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable poet. There was an article about him in "Literature Encyclopedia of 1929-1939" (see an article about this book on ru:Литературная энциклопедия 1929—1939). Speaking about English articles, they are not online, but you can find references to several of them here. Mserge (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: the question I have from the linked Michigan page is that searching on one of the books mentioned doesn't make it clear whether those are indeed English books or if the Michigan page simply names the translation of the Russian title. As I said above and below to Folantin, I'm not debating his notability in Russian (and the Russian wikipedia), I just question whether there is enough in English to include him here. If so, how can the article be improved? Travellingcari (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to nominator: Well, coverage in the English wiki doesn't depend on the number of English-language sources available but, judging by a Google Books search, even on those grounds he's due an article. For example, he has an entry in Victor Terras' Handbook of Russian Literature (not accessible online). The major problem with the English Wikipedia article (which I suspect is what prompted you to put it up for deletion) is that it's a stub the original author seems to have abandoned before he or she got round to any significant events in Narbut's career. For example, one thing you wouldn't learn from our page is that Narbut was killed in a Soviet prison camp. That's quite a big omission! --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply fair enough. I agree on your assessment re: an abandoned stub and the sources initially found seemed to repeat the one line about him being important in acmeism and his dates of birth/death. Perhaps a lack of English information is what led the stub author to abandon the stub. So I guess the guestion is then how can we improve the article to make it worthy of inclusion? I'm not familiar enough with Narbut or his work, nor competent enough in Russian to know how much can be expanded upon. Travellingcari (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'll try to provide a brief outline of his life and works using Russian sources some time this week. Incidentally, as I've said, notability on English Wikipedia is not dependent on the availability of English-language sources on the Net. We're supposed to see things from a global perspective. --Folantin (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree on the global perspective but if a subject isn't covered substantially in English, what's the likelihood that someone is going to look to the English wikipedia for information on the subject? I'm not disagreeing that this stub maybe has potential at some point in the future but I don't agree that the article as it stands warrants a speedy keep. That's just my opinion on the issue and I've enjoyed this discussion. Travellingcari (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm afraid none of what you say in the above comment is a valid ground for deletion per our policies. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly a notable poet - Vald (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone who voted that above. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article using an online Russian source. Ideally, somebody should doublecheck my version to see if I've got the details right. I'm tired and my Russian is a little rusty. --Folantin (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of author-related deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I added a reference to Teras's Handbook of Russian Literature (Yale University Press), a basic source in English, where there's a short but detailed article on this notable and interesting figure. It gives a different death date (November 15 1944) than the one in the current version--maybe somebody knows which is right?--Wageless (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this site [14] the 1944 date is falsified and 1938 is correct. Maybe Terras was published before the opening of the Soviet archives? There's also some disagreement over the cause of his death as the source linked claims he drowned. --Folantin (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt since there appear to be BLP issues and the article was recreated after deletion. If you want this undeleted you need to create a draft in your user space that uses lots of proper reliable sources that provide a rounded biograophy of this individual and then present it at DRV for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Murray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article recreated (though not as pure re-creation of deleted material) by Mercster (talk · contribs) after been recently deleted in another AFD. Concern has been raised that this article does not follow WP:BLP and WP:RS and that this person is not notable per WP:BIO. Following discussion on the articles talk page I am bringing this to AFD for the community to decide. This is a procedural nomination so I am neutral for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...procedural. Great job! Mercster (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources provided seem to qualify as reliable sources to me, therefore it fails WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this deletion nomination is stupid. 90% of this articles content followed what Arnold Murray has done/said on his television program. His television program should count as a reliable citation for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.5.114 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:BLP unable to find reliable sources per WP:V. Article also has WP:POV issues. Major contributor seems to be trying to provide a sanitized version of this subject, and has admitted being a "student" of the subject. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment at first glance there seems to be a fair amount on google news (contrary to a rather disingenuous assertion on the article's discussion page). --Paularblaster (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"disingenuous assertion"? Have you read WP:CIVIL? When I did that Google news search it came up zero just as I stated. Which of the links you have provided are saying gives notability to "Arnold Murray"? Pick two of the best out and add them to the article. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read WP:CIVIL, but I also know when to call a spade a spade. I'm not asserting notability, I'm asserting that something smells fishy. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's fishy is this guy's motives. Less than 24 hours after the article is written, this self-proclaimed "WikiOgre" (the definition sounds like someone who wants to be respected (feared?) for doing nothing but nitpicking on others' work) put the Notability tag on. As you can see in the talk page, I added sources, one of which is a NYC CBS affiliate (!); worried but still unwilling to actually look at the article, he began pasting (in a completely non-grammatical manner) what would be considered "POV" additions to the article, obviously drawn from a couple of the references I had used that happened to criticize Murray. I suspect he was baiting me into editing someone else's content so I could be made to look like i have an interest in something other than quality articles? Why else would he begin adding obviously POV content to what a day earlier he considered a non-notable person?

After I rightfully Undid that as crap (read: vandalism, which is exactly what it was), suddenly he's got admins (does any one of you know anything about the subject? do you have any criticisms of the text of the article in regards to WP:NPOV rather than pointing out that I admitted I was a student of his?) up in arms and throwing around WikiNerd acronyms in a very intimidating manner.

LOL. Amateurs. I'm not even voting in this thing, if the page gets deleted, guess who suffers. Not me :-) If anyone with a head on their shoulders wants to fight the good fight, you're welcome to it.Mercster (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this and I have once again not found any real foundation to the accusations been made here. Putting the notability tag on is exactly what you should do with a biographical article with unclear notability per WP:BIO, especially given that this article was recently deleted in a previous AFD - adding tags to articles is not supposed to be a big deal. Adding sourced "POV" to the article is actually absolutely fine if it is balanced, see WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV. I am also still confused on how this [15] is vandalism. Edits made by people are not divided between good and vandalism, I have seen no evidence that this established user was not attempting to improve the article, hence per WP:AGF, it is not fair to consider it vandalism (which is a serious accusation to make). I have also seen no evidence that Sting au (talk · contribs) has "got admins up in arms"; my involvement here has had nothing to do with the actions of Sting au. I am remaining neutral on if this article should be deleted or not, but I have and will keep an eye on this wherever it goes given its history, just to help with process. Also for the records, I am actually a WikiGnome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing fishy about me putting the notability tag on less than 24 hours after creation. From memory I think I marked it as patrolled too didn't I? Anyhow, I know I spotted it in the "new pages" list as I patrol new pages on a regular basis and tag them with appropriate maintenance tags. As for my WikiOgre userbox that seems to be offensive. I guess I can understand where he's coming from? There is a picture of an Ogre on that page that is about to grab some kiddies in their bed! Now I can see how people would find that offensive. It's supposed to be about advancing on unsuspecting articles, but even that concept will no doubt cause undue stress to new article creators not wanting "their" creations to be deleted/altered from here. I'd thought the WikiOgre tag suited me with the new page patrols and tagging articles etc, and I was just trying to fit into the community with my use of this userbox. Now that I've seen that it does indeed cause stress I shall go and remove the userbox from my userpage. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to what is being written. Read read read. It is not adding tags that was fishy, it was adding one tag, and then editing the article with vandalism the next day with POV info. Which is it, not notable or a POV article? You don't know, you're just being a WikiOgre, right?

It was vandalism. Use your head. Day 1, "WikiOgre" marks article for Notability. Fine. Day 2, after Notability had easily been established, he lashes out with a POV addition that was not balanced in the least; it was essentially the opinion of Murray haters pasted directly into the article. Unlike me, a "good editor", who included spots for both criticisms of Murray and Murray's defense, and also making sure to attribute POV opinion to someone other than the person writing the damn article. Mercster (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm no Sherlock Holmes but here's what I find "fishy". You create this recently deleted article and fill it full of links to religious websites, some of which allude to Murray being a racist, anti-semitic Neo Nazi. Trouble is you write that article to your sanitized version agenda? Now checking the logs shows this article has had to be semi protected in the past due to numerous edit wars! All that before it was deleted in the previous AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if you had been a party to the original edit wars? I wouldn't even be surprised if you are Arnold Murray? I can't actually think who else would bother creating an article on this guy? It's not a case of notability as much as a case of notoriety! Then I guess Hitler has an article so why not other notorious people. I can't imagine editors trying to sanitize Hitlers article though? Who knows. Perhaps they do. It's not on my watch list. Notability is still not established by the way. A guy this notorious must have valid WP:RS out there somewhere? Once notability is established and he passes WP:BLP (which is Policy) then I'll admit the article should be kept. Also I don't regard my edit that you are whining about as being vandalism. Take it to arbitration if you want. I'm prepared to face up to whatever the system needs to throw at me. And to think I decided to begin editing here as a way to relax! Am I a "Murray hater"? Well I wasn't to start with but the more I find out about the guy the less I like him. If his article is kept it should be well balanced. I wouldn't like his content here to be decided by pro Murray editors or in fact Murray himself. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue has been raised, I have restored the edit history behind the existing article for its significance and potential usefulness to editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recreation of article AfD'd for reasons that extend beyond the specific content. The subject of the article just isn't encyclopedic. Furthermore, I am going to call borderline COI on this one - a "student" of this person has entirely re-written the article on Murray - not a week after the article was deleted. I don't consider that appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nomintor Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Tunncliffe (Wayne or Wayne Allen)[edit]

Only assertion of notability is regional, not global or national. Not certain that he meets Wikipedia's biographical criteria. Not a speedy deletion candidate, but assertion of notability is weak at best - radio presenters are not automatically notable. Solumeiras (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has reliable sources.[16] [17] The problem is that the article, i believe, mispells his name. The sources all spell it as Tunnicliffe. --neonwhite user page talk 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we can close this now. It was a mistaken nomination by myself... I should have put another template on it, not the AfD

one, sorry! --Solumeiras (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five-Timers Club[edit]

Delete - one-time sketch with a few throwaway references over the course of several years. No reliable sources establish that this fake "club" has any real-world notability or indeed any real importance within the SNL "universe." All of the "potential members" speculation violates WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has had some cultural impact, though the article fails to demonstrate that. JJL (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. It is an opening routine that has been repeated so often that it's now expected when a host makes a specific number of SNL appearances. The article needs some more citations, however. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fans might expect the gag may offer some insight on its in-universe stature but it does not in any way establish any out-of-universe notability. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "in-universe, out-of-universe" argument. Is Saturday Night Live an alternate reality? I thought it was a variety show. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sketch is a work of fiction and the club is non-existent. Articles about works of fiction have to establish the real-world notability of the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more references are provided to show that this is a notable concept. As it is, the list of who does and doesn't qualify is arguably original research. Terraxos (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't agree on WP:OR at first but upon further reflection I see the concerns. For one thing, I thought the term was only applied to hosts and wouldn't have applied it to bands. There are also some in-universe elements (e.g. the handshake description). Nonetheless, I still say keep and edit. Here are some references to it: [18] ("There's a recurring skit on "Saturday Night Live" about the "Five Timers Club"."[...]"The "Favre Backup Club" could quite very well be the NFL equivalent to the "Five Timers Club"."), [19] (an NBC affiliate's slideshow on the "club"), [20] (note thet the Club wasn't in this show--it's a spontaneous reference to it), [21] (apparently it was #22 on E!'s list of top SNL moments). Note also how prominently it's used to sell SNL videos and other material by members of the (fictional) Club. It seems to be in adequately wide use. JJL (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly justifiable fork for SNL of most-frequent hosts, and the fact that it has a name and is a frequent in-show self-reference only cements notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the independent reliable sources that establish notability are...?

The independent reliable sources that establish notability come from http://snltranscripts.jt.org/90/90hmono.phtml and http://snlmusic.parshaparts.com/snlmusic.php. (Deej30 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Those sites establish the existence of the sketch. They do not establish the slightest bit of notability. And given that they both include "SNL" in the name, there is the question as to whether there is any affiliation with NBC which would make them non-independent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but didn't you argue that there was "No reliable sources" to establish that the article has "any real importance within the SNL universe?" Well, if that is the issue, as you framed it, then clearly the article does because the article was created to highlite the process which the show uses to recognize the various hosts and musical guest who have frequently participated in hosting the show. If you had seriously read the http://snlmusic.parshaparts.com/snlmusic.php link, then you would know that the link was never offered as a site to establish the existence of the sketch, but rather it was offered as concrete evidence of data used for the statistics charts on the article's page. Moreover, if you had read the links, you would know that they were in fact independent from NBC and they are independent sources. In short the article is suppose to be considered as a fork of the greater SNL article in the say light as the article on Weekend Update, Wayne's World or the Coneheads and if you are going to attack the notability of this article, then you have to attack the notability of those articles as well. (Deej30 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Stop. You're wrong. As has been stated time and time again, existence does not equal notability. Much of the rest of your comment makes little sense. Ad for copmparing this article to any other SNL-related article, it's an invalid argument per WP:WAX. The existence of any other SNL article has absolutely zero bearing on the existence of this article. And even if it did, the idea that this throwaway sketch should have an article because, for instance, the Wayne's World franchise (which has two feature films...how many feature films are there about the fake five-timer's club? oh yeah, none) does is ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you... you're wrong. I quoted YOUR own words and refuted them. If my arguments make no sense, then the issue which YOU presented makes no sense. The article has information showing notability (i.e. the cultural reference section and the listed references in the footnotes) outside AND inside the SNL universe. I and others in this discussion have proven that the SNL Five Timer's Club is not a "throw away sketch" and that it has notibility and that it has had an influence in other areas of entertainment like the NFL and cable television. You are also wrong about the use of other sketches and concepts which are related to SNL. OFCOURSE Wayne's World and Weekend Update have nothing to do with the "existence" of the Five Timer's article, and it wasn't offered for that reason... and you know it wasn't. They were offered to show that the Five Timer's Club article serves a similar purpose and/or function like Weekened Update or Wayne's World. Using YOUR analysis, Weekend Update should be considered a "fictional" fake news show "within the SNL universe." Well the Five Timer's Club, again according to you, is a "fake club," which is also inside the SNL universe. Legitimate and independent sources have been offered as cultural references concerning the Weekend Update article and similar legitimate and independent sources have been offered concerning the Five Timer's Club article. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to present articles of notibility, then the Five Timer's Club article does not go against that mandate anymore than the Weekend Update article. The article also provides insight and a history (via detailed statistical data organized from legitimate sources) on the hosts and musical guest of the show. I believe it to be a noteworthy article and if there is a problem with the format, then all of US should be working together to correct the percieve weaknesses of the article, improve the display (perhaps merge it with another article), and improve the quality by adding additional sources instead of making snappy remarks and arbitrarily advocating the article's deletion. It seems to me that that is the true beauty of Wikipedia... global community contribution. (Deej30 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As stated in my vote, this is a perfectly acceptable fork of SNL. I have added a source that refers to Christopher Walken's "membership" in the club, and I will add more. There is clearly no issue with Saturday Night Live hosts (an article that overlaps this one and should be a merge candidate in one direction or the other) as a fork of the main SNL article, and there is real-world reliable support for the title per se. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That some writer mentioned in passing, in a larger profile of Walken, the fictional five-timers club, does not constitute "significant coverage." Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is perfectly justifiable part of SNL History and indeed ARE of real importance within the SNL "universe." . Moreover, the sources ARE reliable and the reasons given for its deletion are PURELY subjective. The fact that it has a name and is a frequent in-show self-reference only highlights its notability. The article clearly states that the "Five Timer's Club" is a running gag that has appeared in SNL consistently throughout the years. If the standard was to keep articles that has no real-world notability, then why not delete the page on Weekend Update, Wayne's World, or Mr. Bill? The section of on the "potential members" does not violates WP:CRYSTAL, because it is based on the fact that certain host & guest have appeared for a certain number of times and are close to membership in the five time category. Deej30 (Deej30 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability is presented in the article. No independent reliable sources are given and so far no one has given any indication that significant coverage by such sources exists. Additionally a lot of the article appears to be covered - or could be adequately covered - in Saturday Night Live hosts. Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with all due respect, you are mistaken. There are independent and reliable CITED sources of notability {websites and articles) that recognize the SNL Five Timer's club as mark of distinction created by the show. For example, there are footnotes by Steve Martin, Christopher Walken and Tom Hanks' names on the chart. These foot notes prove thaat significant coverage has been given to the Five Timers Club "outside" the "SNL Universe". (Deej30 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pajtim Kasami[edit]

I'm a LFC fan, but the lack of WP:RS and the general lack notability is not surprising for a "promising" 15 year old with no record beyond being "promising." I would speedy, but its been there for nearly a week now. Rgds, Trident13 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BIO and fails as per discussions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Notability_of_people for "competitors who have played in a fully professional league". -- Alexf⁴² 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability (yet). The article can be recreated if he ever actually becomes notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally NN. Ought to have been prodded really. Peanut4 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has done nothing of note. Fails WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Truman[edit]

Grandnephew of President Truman and failed Congressional candidate. Notability is not inherited, there are no real sources, and he hasn't done anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, notability is not inherited. Political candidates are not automatically notable (WP:BIO). While his film-making might endow notability none of the films I've found him credited with would satisfy WP:MOVIES. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, notability is not inherited, but looking at his political career and movies it seems that he is indeed notable. If he was only one of those three then he would not be notable, but the combination of the three makes him notable. As WP:BIO for Politicians states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

He is notable for more than just his political career. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this does come down to interpretation. I did consider his various endeavours outside of politics and wondered if they endowed notability. They would not in their own right, and I think it's a dangerous to set a precendent that mediocrity in a variety of fields endows notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is already here. See Natasha Collins and both of its deletion dicussions. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD was delete/redirect, the other was no consensus. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of any kind of precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is what we need. If we closed that one as a no censensus default to keep, then we should close this one as a no concensus default to keep, even without the votecount. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed minor political candidate, movie extra, teacher. Where's the notability in that? WWGB (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no notability in any of that alone but combined make the subject notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's the deletion of articles like this that hurt the reputation of Wikipedia. Notability is a standard applicable for encyclopedias that have limited space on the printed page. All this does is discourage people from contributing. Do what thou wilt. Chadlupkes (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that it's the preponderance of dross with little or no notability that hurts the reputation of Wikipedia. Then again, I didn't start this article. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO in all three career domains. Just having a varied career is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does pass WP:BIO as per my reasoning above. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Responding to everyone with the same comment (or a "see my comment above") is not helping you look reasonable and engaged. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, musician/no assertion of notability. He may have worked hard on this autobiographical article, but this is an high-school-junior rapper "signed" to a redlink label. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rival (Rapper)[edit]

Non-notable rapper. Fails WP:BLP due to lack of secondary sources. Original author's username is Emceerival, which seems to indicate COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why isn't this speedy? Doesn't come close to notability as per WP:MUSIC. No independent sources (WP:V). Of course, when the promised album is released things might change and the page can be recreated. Until then it's just a vanity page that has no place on Wikipedia. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I marked it only {{notability}} to avoid WP:BITE. The user appears to be new to wikipedia, yet all things considered put together a reasonable music biography. Since he had more than just one "release", I thought I would give him time to learn the rules about notability and post some secondary sources. My wife and I have been doing new pages / speedy delete patrol and this page is much better than the majority of {{db-bio}} and friends we've placed. I think the article is reasonably neutral point of view (though again, perhaps new pages patrol has colored my view). The user also seems reasonable, and willing to discuss the matter, as per his conversation with Cuyler91093 (Talk). If anyone is willing to work with him a little longer, it seems reasonable the page could be improved to standards, and he might become a regular contributing editor. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until he does actually produce the sources, I think the conclusion is clear. The five days or so of AfD should be enough time. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unsourced. Sandstein (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explicatus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Orphan article that, after six months, needs a second look. The description given in the article,

An explicatus is a section (or often, an entire volume) of a written work that explains the methods used to collect and analyze the data or research presented in that work. Most often, an explicatus is rather detailed in terms of methodology and in some cases, also in the applications of data found.

may well describe what the one work cited elsewhere in the article consists of, but there's absolutely no evidence that the term (which simply means "explanation" as a noun or "explained" as a participle) has ever been used to denote such works in general. In the absence of reliable sources that support the particular usage adduced in the article, or any usage to refer to a specifiable genre of work, this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any verification as per WP:V, even if I could Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches, including Google Books (try it, you'll see what I mean), don't suggest that this is a commonly used term in publishing. Moreover, the article implies that it is unusual for a book to have a section "that explains the methods used to collect and analyze the data or research presented in that work". Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text says the term isn't used anymore, not that "it is unusual ...". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've completely missed the point about what's implied to be unusual. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the term is part of an 1740 book title [22] or a modern Polish book [23] or a 1594 book [24], cover or a (17th century?) Latin book about Poland [25] or this or Magnus Hippocrates Cous Prosperi Martiani Medici Romani Notationibus Explicatus, 1626 [26] (attached description fits the WP definition). Explicatio (noun) is used in a 17th century book [27] and in 18th century book [28] and in 1661 Samuel Pordage's Mundorum Explicatio and 16th century Japonicae tabulae explicatio [29]. As a section it is used in an 1664 book [30] (probably not in the sense of WP definition).

The claim to delete it doesn't seem to be completely valid. Put in tag "source needed" to warn the reader, obscure medieval terminology takes more time to cover then the modern foreword, preface, ... for dummies or the popularity of XYZ explained titles. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In your first group of titles, the word is used as a participle (= "explained"), in most of the cases indicating that the work is a commentary on the work of another author. For instance, Magnus Hippocrates Cous Prosperi Martiani Medici Romani Notationibus explicatus means "[The Works of] Great Hippocrates of Cos Explained by the Notes of the Roman Physician Prospero Martiano." In none of these cases is explicatus used as a noun in the sense this article gives. Your second group are instances of the use of a completely different word—explicatio—that has nothing to do with this article. Deor (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if reliable sources cannot be provided. Even if they can, copying to Wiktionary may be more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copy The article is just a definition anyway, it belongs on Wiktionary. Beeblbrox (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "explicatus" has been used for a long time to denote a work that details methods or collected data used to furnish another, primary, work with factual information. As I stated when I wrote the Wikipedia entry here considered for deletion, Darret and Anita Rutman, two American history professors, have used the term and cite its use elsewhere. I will try to source some other uses of it, also. Just because the term is now rare doesn't mean it should be excluded from Wikipedia: in contrast, it seems all the more reason for it to be included given that some readers may not find a good definition of it elsewhere.Mike (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find any specific examples of the use of the term "to denote a work that details methods or collected data used to furnish another, primary, work with factual information" (other than the Rutman volume) or any relevant appearance of the term "in older dictionaries which many people won't bother to consult" (as you've said on the article's Talk page), I'll consider WP:V satisfied and cheerfully withdraw my nomination. I don't think you're going to have much luck, though. Deor (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sort of obscure minutiae is exactly the sort of material that belongs on wikipedia. Where else would you find a good explanation of it?

I agree that the article needs to be expanded and can be made better. That said, one gathers the impression from reading the comments of those who want to delete the article that whether an article should be on wikipedia or not is solely based upon their whims and wishes rather than on the site's avowed purpose of placing as much information into the public domain as possible. It would be unseemly for this to devolve into a popularity contest. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lebanese Armenian Movement[edit]

Delete. No references provided, no independent verification of notability. Google provides only one hit, at a bulletin board WWGB (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see at least two newspaper articles discussing them: [31][[32]. Unfortunately my command of Arabic is quite poor so I can't expand the article myself. cab (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citation, no independent verification of notability.--Larno Man (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. (I can't read Arabic, so it may be that the sources provided satisfy that requirement, but judging from the content of the article I doubt it - this doesn't seem like a notable group to me.) Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a new movement and certainly not notable as of yet, however, chances are it will be soon and it doesn't hurt to keep the article for a few months or so. If the party doesn't manage to establish notability after a while, then it should be put for AfD. Seems like an interesting political topic anyway. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xentra[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement that literally was made up one day. Wikipedia is not a free web host. 1 ghit. MER-C 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a character from stories posted on "some guy's blog", not anything that has actually been published by... anyone. Only source is that guy's blog, nothing reliable or independent. DarkAudit (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable web content. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jah Rad[edit]

Blatant vanispamcruftisement, which flunks WP:MUSIC and WP:V. 48 ghits. MER-C 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources. Absolutely nothing on Google News. Fails WP:MUSIC BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This reads like a promotional flyer. Totally inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, needs to be wikified, and fails WP:N. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaith Madadha[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable journalist - there's nothing to distinguish him from thousands of other writers. The only Google hits seem to be his articles - no evidence whatever of any kind of notability as WP defines it, no internal evidence of it within the article and no worthwhile references. andy (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from a handful of articles he's written, the only piece about him I could find was this which isn't enough to establish notability. Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Remarkably few hits, especially as he is a journalist (Google News only brought up one article he'd written). No evidence of notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Unfortunately the article does not meet WP:N, and rough consensus on this page is that it cannot do so. This result has no prejudice against recreation if it is found the article can meet relevant policies. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King George International College[edit]

Delete - No sources. Notability not established. The article reads like a brochure promoting this private ESL school. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arguably Canada's largest English language school with five campuses. Obviously notable. It needs a good clean but that is not a deletion ground. TerriersFan (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, but according to whom? There is no source for that claim. Unfortunately, there has been a problem in Canada with privately run international schools of dubious worth attracting students from abroad on the basis of their website only to fail to deliver what was promised. Given that we have to be especially careful with these private ESL schools to ensure that their claims are backed up by reliable third party sources. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, their website claims they are "one of the largest", not the largest and they have four campuses, not five. Looking at the photos most of the "campuses" look like they are no more than a room in an office building.Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article is a thorough description of a school system with multiple campuses nationwide and a strong claim of notability. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be legitimate but certainly falls short of WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR. Also, per WP:SELFPUB, we cannot "expand, not delete" articles for which the only potential non-directory sources are the subject's own website and brochures. GNews hits consist of passing mentions in coverage about two women from Taiwan who attended the school and died in an unrelated bus crash [33]. cab (talk) 00:37, 2 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. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghenadie Şonţu[edit]

No notability and most likely self-promotion Nergaal (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent self-promotion. Biruitorul (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of visual arts-related deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - I notice the gallery website copies old WP version (eg of Rembrandt, with no acknowledgement. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but not because it should necessarily be kept, but because AfD is not a venue for content or editor disputes. Find the right venue. May I suggest WP:DR or WP:3O? Keeper | 76 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult and new religious movement researchers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The combination of strict inclusion criteria and strict sourcing criteria has led to an empty list i.e. a list without sourced entries. User:DoctorW insists on strict inclusion criteria which user:Andries opposes and user:Andries insists on strict sourcing criteria. Andries (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- completing nom. No opinion given. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. Although this survived an AFD challenge only 2 1/2 months ago, this list would appear to have self-destructed and rendered itself moot owing to the circumstances described by the nominator. Since it clearly passed the last AFD challenge, maybe the best thing for it is to start over from scratch (which is why I'm suggesting delete this one outright, with no prejudice towards recreation later). 23skidoo (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to start Wikipedia:dispute resolution to have the inclusion criteria not so strict. But I am not going to do the effort. Andries (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This version would be fine for me as a starting point but user:DoctorW disagrees and reverted too make the inclustion criteria stricter again. Andries (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. It seems that starting the article from the scratch is a good idea.--Larno Man (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject; but the list itself, and its terms of inclusion, may need to be re-examined. I agree that dispute resolution may be the way to go here. Terraxos (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and solve editing dispute at correct venue. AfD can not fix editing disputes. Deleting the article and starting over will not magically solve anything. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:11, 4 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) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons[edit]

In-universe plot summary and trivia. No assertion of real-world notability, nor any mention of real-world development, critical response, etc. Footnoted references only substantiate elements of plot summary, and all the reference materials listed provide only in-universe "history" and make-believe "technical information" -- again, nothing for an out-of-universe encyclopedic treatment. Most of the content appears simply to be original research and fan speculation. --EEMIV (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 09:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I fully agree with the nomination, but I think that it would be possible to save this article by chopping out all the OR and using the various Star Wars handbooks and similar as references. I've tagged the article for rescue, but deleting the article as it stands would be no great loss. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't official Star Wars books count as primary sources? TJ Spyke 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Possibly, but what else is available? If its not written in an in-universe style the article could be OK. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, L A X 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic fancruft with no real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be improved so that it is written from a less in-universe standpoint; for instance, the Special Effects aspects of these beam weapons. This has already been addressed in the section on lasers (I suppose the nominator hasn't bothered to read that far), where there is a mention of how Star Wars lasers are depicted differently from real-world lasers. As a matter of fact, two of these weapon types are dramatizations of real world devices currently in development, i.e. lasers and mass drivers. Does that answer the nom's concern about real-world development? The fictional weapons listed here are notable, both in the context of Sci-Fi and once again in SFX; Star Wars as a movie has made significant advances in special effects, most especially as regards depiction of space battles. IMO, the article needs rewriting (and perhaps renaming, dropping the "List of") to accent these aspects, not deletion. Freederick (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The bit about discrepancies and whatnot is uncited original research. Can anyone cite a connection between real-world lasers and mass drivers? Did one influence the other? If anyone wants to write an article on the notable and verifiable topic of Special effects in Star Wars, then go for it. But this clump of material here? It's OR, speculation, and general cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notability can be established through multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Reliable sources might exist.</kidding> Delete as non-encyclopedic and not-even-potentially-encyclopedic. User:Dorftrottel 13:03, January 29, 2008
Keep. Encyclopedic material that satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Article is well-organized and concerns verifiable elements of a notable fictional universe. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that verification? --EEMIV (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Watch or read any of the mediums in which these ships appear. See also the article's reference section. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Books and movies are inappropriate primary sources that allow only for plot summary at best, original research at worst. The cited references, too, provide only in-universe material. This article wholly lacks reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact remains that the article features published reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does not feature one single third-party reliable secondary source. Not one. User:Dorftrottel 03:23, January 30, 2008
        This source looks fairly reliable and is not about plot. Also, the History Channel had a special on Star Wars tech, which if memory serves me correct did address weapons on the space vehicles/stations and their weaponary. See here for more. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The "The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition (Star Wars)" is not a third-party source by any stretch of imagination. You see, "third-party" doesn't mean it's not about the plot. It means it predominantly discusses things from a real world perspective, which this in-universe fan-oriented book does not. FWIW, your second example appears far more interesting. "through the eyes of cold hard science". Any chance to get a copy and evaluate it further? User:Dorftrottel 03:44, January 30, 2008
        They tend to replay History Channel shows relatively frequently, and I believe you can order a copy. If you are unwilling to do so, then you may want to check with members in the Star Wars wikiproject to see if anyone has a copy and would be willing to use it as a source. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, since you brought it up, why don't you do it? User:Dorftrottel 05:36, January 30, 2008
        I'm willing to keep an eye out myself for the special and I'll notify the Star Wars wikiproject of the discussion, but article improvement really should be a team effort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world context provided, fails WP:PLOT. This article is a derived work from the films and can not be released under GFPL. Taemyr (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable elements of a fictional universe, extremely doubtful reliable secondary sources have ever devoted significant coverage to anything or the list. Clear failure WP:NOT#PLOT since there is no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this plot summary has such a heavy in universe perspective as to have little encyclopedic value. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a plot summary. But it is a presentation of background material from a fictional universe. It's a derivative work and violates U.S. copyright law. The Transhumanist 22:05, 1 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCat Anarchist Collective[edit]

non-notable group, now inactive, article even admits in the first line that the group is of limited importance - looks to me a bit like self-advertising, like a bulletin board post. Doesn't make the news when googled, just linked to by other protest groups. Rocklaw (talk)Rocklaw (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Rocklaw (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources (refs are all links to organizations named in the article), none appear to exist online, and none are likely to show up, given that the organization is inactive. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. —Skomorokh ^confer 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added a couple of real refs and removed those that don't mention this group.-gadfium 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, group is defunct but that doesn't diminish notability in a historical context. How notable is this group? Lord Metroid (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Doesn't seem notable at all, though I haven't tried searching too hard. This information may be best placed in an Anarchism in New Zealand article, in a subsection on contemporary anarchist activity. It suffers as it's own article. I've saved the text to my sandbox, should the Anarchist Task Force ever choose to use it for such a purpose.--Cast (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm sympathetic to their aims (and even know most of the admins of this group), they're of little importance even in New Zealand. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of organizations deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article aren't independent and the organisation had very little impact on New Zealand during its brief life. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real notability as demonstrated by coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But it would be good to have them mentioned in a wider article, as Cast suggests. --Helenalex (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saro[edit]

School organization which does not state assertion of notability. Google Search does not return any usable sources. seav (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 Google hits, and two of them are to Friendster. Unimpressive for assertion of notability Doc Strange (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, probably vanity. JJL (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See related afd for other Philippine School orgs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Lenticel's argument. Starczamora (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sapol News Bulletin[edit]

News service not notable enough. A Google search does not return any usable info. seav (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn - article fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does a speedy apply here? No assertion of notability whatsoever. If this were an article on a person instead of a newspaper, it would have vanished already. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and DA. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:48, 3 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 are valid arguments put forth in good faith (and civil too! A sight for sore eyes in AfD-land:-) by both sides, specifically Mbilitatu and Lquilter. The article has been improved (read:tamed) since being tagged, resulting in a keep instead of a no consensus. Keeper | 76 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Eden[edit]

Any article with extraordinary claims such as -born ability to literally see the body's energies needs really, really, strong sources. Corvus cornix_talk 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Corvus cornix and because it doesn't have any referenced statements of notability. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she has four books published, at least two of them by reputable publishers (Putnam and Penguin). The "extraordinary claim" you mention should obviously be attributed, but that's not a reason for deleting the entire article. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it certainly needs editing and improving - it's just the first stub. I am fairly new to writing articles, but based on the guidelines it does not seem to me that it deserves deletion ... she is well known in the energy medicine community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazka (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Publication =/= automatically notability. Extraordinary claims, with reliable evidence or sources backing them, nor any sign of real-world or historic impact or influence. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it depends on whether or not you think publication by a reliable publisher constitutes coverage by "a secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm inclined to think it does, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am new to Wiki as a contributor, but my belief is that an article on Donna Eden is reasonable. I added a couple of citations where requested. To label the phrase born ability to see the body's energies as an extraordinary claim is itself subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mbilitatu, I believe that Wikipedia:Fringe theories is appropriate here. --Lquilter (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Can't say that I support her philosophy, but notability does appear do be demonstrated. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable enough given the number of books and links cited. Needs perhaps additional sourcing if there are any claims of concern, plus it needs to adhere to WP:BLP. I noticed the BLP banner wasn't included so I have added it which may spark additional improvements by members of the Bio WikiProject. 23skidoo (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a lot of sources, but how many of them actually qualify as reliable? Not many, indeed probably none. The only source that's arguably reliable and independent of the subject is the Amazon bestsellers chart, and even if she's sold a lot of books, I'm not sure we can justify a biography based on that alone. This article also has serious problems with both neutrality and factual accuracy; I sincerely doubt that she really can 'see the body's energies' or 'correct imbalances in the body'. If it is kept, all that will need to be cleaned up. Terraxos (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative healing is part of the New Age movement, which is not scientific of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. We also have articles on Scientology, or Wicca, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks who think the ideas behind these movements are preposterous, but they are still regarded as notable phenomena. As to the particular claims you mention, as I've said the only problem I see with them is that they are unattributed. They have to be attributed, even if only to Eden herself. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those belief systems and movements are notable, but that doesn't mean that their claims are valid, of course. Attributing claims to sources is not the only hurdle; those also have to be reliable sources. Again, please see WP:FRINGE. --Lquilter (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself said: "Eden's own website is a reliable source for her claims", so I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Gatoclass (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question?. Again, I'm new to this, so please forgive my ignorance of the process. Are we not confusing two issues: notability and believability? I get the sense that many contributors do not believe in energy, energy medicine or the ability to see it. Fine. Is that the issue here? Donna Eden is well known in her field, but her field and the people who refer to her are not going to be mainstream scientists. I get that the sources have to be reliable, but it's not clear to me that folks understand the sources. Kripalu, Esalen and Omega are all well known alternative centers ... do we need to create pages for them and cite sources to justify that statement? That said ... I agree that the content of the article is too promotional for an encyclopedia. Is it policy to delete an article which is in need of improvement?--Mbilitatu (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I cleaned up the content, isolated the bolder claims, added some qualifying language, and included a controversy section. --Mbilitatu (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks better but I think you overdid it a tad, so I've toned it down a bit. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable in the field. FWIW, paranormal or miraculous claims or fringe beliefs do not need "stronger" sourcing than any other assertion of belief. Descriptions of the substance of a claim or the nature of a belief system are what we can look for. Reliable sources on these matters are those which reliably report what is believed; and statements by the believers are generally reliable on these matters, even if others find the beliefs unlikely. What is ultimately "true" or not is beyond our competence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author is notable within their field as evidenced by the fact that they have a book with a high Amazon ranking, she meets all of the criteria for having a Wikipedia page. The page is also sourced and cited. No valid reason for deletion. - perfectblue (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Marginal notability according to Wikipedia standards that rely on publications and particularly looking at WP:PROF for assessing influence of the work (this method would pick up influence within the New Age community insofar as the New Age community publishes). If notable, obviously the "ability" claims can be discussed as claims; Eden's own website is a reliable source for her claims -- claims being statements that one makes about oneself. But this still needs some work on clarity and to comply with style for WP:FRINGE.

The basic ghits is 56,000. It's a common name, but the first 30 hits are all this Donna Eden, so I'll assume some google-juice. However, looking at the substance of the hits, these include primarily biographies of her for places/events where she's spoken (which are likely not "independent" sources for claims like "world's authority" or "world-renowned"; that's typical puffery for organizations trying to get people to come to an event), and a lot of bookstores with her books (remaindered, I note), and her LinkedIn page.
Google News returns ZERO hits. That's really not good and indicates, to me, that some significant amount of the other hits are self-promotion. People who do lots of speaking & lecture tours, as Donna Eden does, rely on self-promotion and often have a lot of google hits, but you can usually see that it's a result of self-promotion by looking at Google News.
Google scholar returns 50 hits, but a number of them are not clearly this Donna Eden -- on healthcare stats, opthalmology, high school guidance counseling. Works that are clearly this Donna Eden include the book Energy Medicine which was cited by 20; another related cite cited by 2; an Energy Psychology cited by 38; and about 25 other items only two of which were cited by anyone at all, and those two cited once and twice, respectively. Those 25 were largely not significant treatments, although many of them were references or quotes. I think that within the published New Age literature, this is marginal.
The "world expert" claim btw is from a speaking engagement biography so it's really not correct to say that she "is" or "is recognized as"; she probably wrote that herself, as is common with speakers. That needs a reliable source, and news media is usually a good source for that sort of thing, but there are no news media sources for her.

Lquilter (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The standard for notabiliy is notability in a person's field.

WP:PROF is for academics (i.e., professors). I disagree that the standards of WP:PROF would pick up influence within the New Age community insofar as the New Age community publishes.. The academic community, the community of professors, is not the only community that publishes and is not the community which is the arbiter of notability or truth. Requiring that a non-academic be assessed as notable within the academic papers seems non-neutral to me. In addition, although in common usage, applying the label 'New Age' is already applying the mainstream POV to her work. People in Energy Medicine would not refer to themselves by that label. From wiki New Age, Individuals who hold any of its beliefs may not identify with the name, and the name may be applied as a label by outsiders to anyone they consider inclined towards its world view.
Within her field, I actually think a vibrant schedule of talks and classes is an indication of notability. The article does not rely on this, but filling public talk after talk or class after class is excruciatingly difficult unless a person has a widely recognized name.
I agree that many of Donna Eden's Google hits are self promotion. But most of your argument to justify the statement that Donna Eden has Marginal notability according to Wikipedia standards seems to be based on Google hits. If you will take a look at Talk:Donna Eden, you will see my comments about the sources used in the article. Those sources have tons of Google hits, so by the same standard, I believe the article sources from reliable sources.
That said, the point you bring up about people writing their own glorious biographical statement ... that's a good point. It would be good to back up that claim better.
Yes, the news media is not interested in Donna Eden. In general, Energy medicine does not make the news. If you Google news 'Paris Hilton' you get 4,933 hits. If you Google news 'acupuncture', you get 719 hits. If you Google news 'energy medicine', you get 26 hits. Donna Eden is notable in a field that has largely been ignored in the western world. Paris Hilton is famous. Donna Eden is not famous, but from WP:Notability, notability is distinct from "fame".
You did not comment on her amazon ranking. The Energy Medicine book is currently #2 in the Energy Healing category, #3 in Health Mind and Body authors, and #11 in New Age. This is a book that was published in 1999, so those positions are not the result of a manipulation.--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:54, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cohn[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No notable sources. The television source does not lead to the person mentioned in the article. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete has certainly done many reviews [34] but most seem to be online/blog-style and no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Movie reviews are not inherently notable, and apart from that this person has no claim to notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf (Los Angeles band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The link for the bassist leads to a soccer coach, not a band member too. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC Doc Strange (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at WP:MUSIC. SingCal 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Science Youth Movement[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable group. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No sources other than it's own site.Undeath (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Make it a subsection of Religious Science, doesn't pass WP:NOT on its own. Vrac (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually, the Religious Science article itself seems to have nothing but self references, and the sources for the inventor of the movement, Ernest Holmes, are also poor. I have to ask myself whether any of these articles pass the notability test. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTE, lack of any independent citations to establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N, the group's own site does not satisfy WP:RS. meshach (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Wikipedia doesn't need to monitor what teenagers do on their religious camps... — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclestyle[edit]

Unverifiable vanispamcruftisement. A google search for the subject and it's inventor turns up nothing. MER-C 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I'm not convinced Jumpstyle is notable, let alone this. Terraxos (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep and nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure by --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Mugavero[edit]

Keep - The office is notable, as the first Italian-American bishop of Brooklyn has additional notability, and his tenure was quite long. Vrac (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is ridiculous!! User:Cuyler91093 apparently did not even read the article or he/she would have known that Mugavero was Bishop of one of the largest dioceses in the United States. There are five or six links provided how did the article violate WP:VERIFY. Absolutely ridiculous!! Askedandanswered (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should explain some of the terminology more. I, personally, am not religious, and I am not familiar with some of the terms. I apologize if I have offended you, but you need to explain that being a bishop of that particular diocese is important. Again, I apologize, and hope that you define terms a bit more. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract this nomination, as I don't believe it's necessary to go through with this. Upon reading wikilinks, he sounds important. Just note that I added some notability to the page, and I fixed a wikilink that had parentheses in it. I'm sorry for any trouble I may have caused. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Keep. With a little more editing, this page can be more notable. Askedandanswered, I answered your talk page, and I hope you're not too offended. I apologize to everybody about this. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Mukilteo School District. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic View Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school. Tavix (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mukilteo School District. GNews searches show no evidence of notability, just trivial mentions using the school's location as a point of reference and one article about how it was shut down by an e-mail threat in 2005 [37]. cab (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mukilteo School District per CaliforniaAliBaba. The school itself is not notable and doesn't assert any notability, but the district seems to. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into an yet to be discussed article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneesama[edit]

Prod was opposed, nomination is next step. Article, IMO, fails WP:N and WP:RS (lack of independent and reliable sources), and raises concerns about WP:OR (original research/analysis yielding an opinion), WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a usage guide) and WP:SOAP (opinion piece with numerous subjective claims that are not sourced). Opposition to prod states that article reaches beyond dictionary definition, but there really is little more IMO that an encyclopedic article on "Oneesama" can address beyond a clear-cut definition without requiring an analysis and, by extension, sources for such analysis. Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the unsourced original research from the article which leaves very little. Edward321 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic entry to me. If there are other pages named "oneesan" or "oneechan" or "oneesama", etc. then we could make this into a redirect. However, I don't see anything of the sort when I search, so I say we soft redirect this page. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Japanese honorifics Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is the perfect entry for there, but lacks enough substance to be an article here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about creating an article on Japanese kinship terms and merging it there? It can include familiar and honorific forms for various words as well as descriptions of when they are used. Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that sort of article be notable in the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, that might be fine. However, I don't see how that kind of article dealing with any culture (even if we changed it to kinship terms in English-speaking culture) would be notable or would avoid WP:NOT concerns (Wikipedia is not a usage guide). --Roehl Sybing (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article on an aspect of a language isn't usage guide, no more than the article on Japanese honorifics is. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not adequately answer the question I posed. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fg2: I was actually contemplating expanding a different direction, documenting the soeur system from Maria-sama ga Miteru and attempts to reproduce it in real life. Aside from seeing message boards and LJ communities dedicated to it, though, I've not yet found [[WP:RS|reliable sources on the real-life aspects, though I may not be looking in the right places. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japanese honorifics, possibly copy to Wiktionary as well. Not notable enough as a term in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japanese titles. The word is just a variation of 姉/big sister when talking about or speaking to. Oda Mari (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per as per Terraxos, Oda Mari and Chris (クリス • フィッチ) --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. as others have mentioned, this has become a stock element of areas like galges, moe, and so on. Cliche, convention, or whatever you want to call it, it's not 'just' a random honorific or title. --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 30 January 2008 (GMT)
Merge. An individual page are nonsense without another related terms in the same page. Keep is impossible. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:06, 1 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 both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megacorp Weapons Company[edit]

Gamecruft. No secondary sources or assertion of out-of-game notability. Contested PROD, which lasted all of 2 minutes before being deproded by author with no explanation. Sigh. eaolson (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

Starship Phoenix

Delete both per nom Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: gamecruft with no real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there does not appear to be any independant notability. Slavlin (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Cutrone[edit]

Non-notable "American Musician/Comedian/Writer." Claim to notability seems to be that one of his screenplays is "currently awaiting a bidding option from HBO." Never been in a major band and once hosted a local cable TV show. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, best claim of notability is being a radio personality, but I don't think that's enough; cites no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of sufficient notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Doc Strange (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Caye Caulker Times[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Caye Caulker Times. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Weak Delete Not quite a delete, but more than a weak delete. Maybe there needs to be more contribution to the article, but personally, I don't see how far it can go. It seems non-notable, and there has only been one contributer who mostly edits that page, but has a few others. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry. Not likely to be notable if it was just founded this month. No Google hits except two issues of itself. (google web, google books or google news). --Coppertwig (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Village papers are almost certainly not notable, but particularly not those that have only just been founded. (And :) at Kornfan's 'Strong Weak' vote above.) Terraxos (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reiss[edit]

No sourcing; not totally convinced on his notability. Nominating for AFD review. Lawrence § t/e 03:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Writer for the New Yorker, publisher of multiple books, at least one of which sold well...I think he passes WP:NOT. Perhaps the cause would be better served by adding cite tags to the article. Vrac (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with rationale of Vrac. SidP (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academics & educators deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His book, 'The Orientalist', received a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources, and he seems fairly notable himself. The article could use better sourcing, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Libya[edit]

Article asserts itself as a "list" however the sole item on the "list" is a mention with a link to an article on the alleged UFO sighter. I'd have said merge, but there is no substance to the article. There doesn't appear to have been any more on the 'list' in the page's history either. Travellingcari (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wiktionary, a list is "a register or roll of paper consisting of an enumeration or compilation of a set of possible items." I find this list to be lacking a bit, seeing as it only has one thing on it. I'd say either delete or go out to Libya and find some UFOs. The delete sounds a bit quicker though. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't assert notability (why are UFO sightings in Libya more notable than anywhere else in Africa?) Doc Strange (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly referenced nonsense. Does not pass WP:N or WP:V. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a sub-article of List of UFO Sightings, which breaks out sightings by country in summary style. I'm personally not entirely sure that's the best way to organize it, but if there are concerns of the granularity of the organization of the suite of articles, perhaps better than an AfD would be to raise the concerns on the parent article's talk page. (I suspect merging this into UFO sightings in Africa would be a good idea, but I've no horse in this race.) —Quasirandom (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO sightings in Africa per above, which is what I instantly thought when I saw the article. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into either Carmelo Papotto (if that article survives its own AFD) or List of UFO sightings. Terraxos (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Shoot the Messenger Demo EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Shoot the Messenger Demo EP

I declined the A7, because it doesn't apply to music. Added PROD, but article creator put a {{hangon}} tag. I'll WP:AGF and take that as a deletion of the PROD. So, here we go...

As is, it fails WP:MUSIC... horribly. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you'll note that it appears the band has been Speedied. The album also fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band fails WP:MUSIC, so their album does too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band isn't notable enough for an article, their self-published, unsigned, less-than-2000-copies-sold demo album certainly isn't. eaolson (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 for bands really should be altered to include this. BLACKKITE 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the band was speedied, it's back. But I think demo's are inherently unnotable, even more so for unsigned bands. Dchall1 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leonard[edit]

This one's making me think WP:HOAX. Says she was signed to EMI but their website has never heard of her. Says she is currently signed to Universal Music Publishing but their website has never heard of her. Claims she wrote forty songs between 2006 and 2007 that all charted. This sounds really bogus.... Redfarmer (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom's evidence shows that this is not at all a notable artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; article has been considerably rewritten and now illustrates notability quite clearly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Not a hoax, I actually found her MySpace site here [38] and not a bad voice either. However, MySpace and Blog to not make for notability. Let’s call her claims on the article page an exaggeration of success. Shoessss | Chat 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ahh .Wageless you have put us all to shame. Change to Keep. Shoessss | Chat 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AllMusic confirms some of the collaborations, but just writing songs isn't notability, as heady as the experience may be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete not a hoax, but there's a mix between total lies and an article for a NN artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. Proclaims to have 40 songs charted by end of 2007. Well if she did, she would meet WP:N no problem, but Billboard brings up absolutely no artist page or chart positions Doc Strange (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Heymann Standard. it's been rewritten, and with the new citations, it meets WP:N now Doc Strange (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article clearly has huge problems and I don't know how's best to tackle those problems. However, there is evidence that Michelle Leonard is a notable subject. I took one claim on the page, that she co-wrote a song entitled "Out of Tears", released by Hanna Pakarinen. That claim appears true (multiple Ghits shows Leonard as co-writer on the song). The song does not appear to have been released as a single, but the album it's on, Stronger, made #2 in Finland. Other songs on the page also appear to have been co-written by her and to have been on charting releases. Songwriting is a valid basis for notability if the songs written have been sufficiently successful. Simply searching Billboard isn't going to tell us much given that the material she's been writing has generally been recorded by other artists and has been charting in Europe, not the US. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, here's a better example. The page claims she co-wrote a song entitled "Don't Let It Get You Down" by Mike Leon Grosch. I've found confirmation of that and that the song made #2 in Switzerland and #6 in Austria.[39] Search a Swiss chart site rather than Billboard and you get plenty of evidence of a successful songwriting career.[40] Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment contd. I've done a fair amount of clean-up on this page. The more I look, the more I am surprised that previous editors thought this page was a hoax and were unable to verify the information contained. A few Wikipedia and Google searches demonstrate that Leonard has written multiple songs for multiple charting artists and is clearly notable under WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me again... OK, I've re-written the article from top to bottom. It could still do with more work, but it now has citations and links to other Wikipedia articles. There are now multiple examples of songs written or co-written by Leonard and being released on charting albums, and a few out as singles. This includes extensive work on an Estonian #1 album (Vanilla Ninja's Love is War, also top 20 in Germany); significant work on a Finnish #1 album (My Winter Storm from Tarja Turunen); and co-writing a Swiss #2 single (Mike Leon Grosch's "Don't Let It Get You Down", from the album Absolute that went #2 in Germany). She is signed to Universal Music Publishing. Nearly everything in the original article was true, as far as I can check. This is not an example of WP:HOAX or WP:BOLLOCKS, but simply of poor formatting and the non-Anglophone bias inherent in Wikipedia. This also demonstrates many of the problems with the AfD process. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article supplies useful information about someone who is demonstrably a notable, successful European songwriter. Bondegezou has made a laudable first pass at necessary morphings.Wageless (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What went wrong? Why was a page by someone who clearly is notable mistaken for a hoax or that of a non-notable musician? I think it can be useful to look at what's gone wrong in a case like this so that we can learn for the future. Obviously, the page originally had very poor formatting and no citations, so it was difficult to read. Redfarmer then checked and didn't find Leonard listed by Universal Music Publishing, but he checked the US site and she is listed by the German site. Likewise, Doc Strange checked Billboard, i.e. the US charts, when her material has charted in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Estonia. Moreover, as a songwriter, the material was released under the names of the recording artists and not hers. I would humbly suggest that editors remember to look beyond poor formatting and remember to look beyond US web sources before deciding how to argue in an AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and "Assume Good Faith" isn't a bad notion either. Thanks Bondegezou for your sleuthage.Wageless (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's an Anglophone bias as much as it is a knee-jerk non-notable bias. Nothing personal intended at Redfarmer, but too many times I see articles shot down in flames within mere minutes of article creation, often times because the original author simply didn't know policies. -- RoninBK _{T C} 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has drastically improved and now clearly demonstrates notability. Ursasapien (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Burnett[edit]

Non-notable rugby player. Very short article admits he has yet to make his first professional debut. Fails WP:BIO criteria for athletes. Redfarmer (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We can bring it back if he gets to be more notable. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. In fact, this is practically speedy-delete material. Terraxos (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold will look into the player. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, doesn't look like there should be a problem if you want to create a redirect over this deleted article as well. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Season (Emerson Drive album)[edit]

Neither of these albums seems to be notable in any way; a search for reliable sources turned up none. The sources provided aren't reliable and appear to be fansites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find one reliable source that the name Until You Walk the Tracks exists ([41]), but I can't find any reliable sources proving the track list. Redirect until more sources are found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both unless more reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Dollar[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable bootleg album. Only sources are trivial in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Have to agree. An album that has never been release since it was originally cut in 2000. It is worth no more than the mention it has already received in Wikipedia as shown here [42]. Shoessss | Chat 02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoessss. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how does one establish what a "notable bootleg" album is? I would have thought any album by a notable musician would be inherently notable, but perhaps that is not the case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea that an unreleased album with three released singles (per MTV) is not notable because it wasn't released (detail that is at best a technicality) is somewhat baffling, especially when they form the backstory to one of the decade's best-selling artists. Reviews of the actual album, including track listings, do exist from reliable sources, like this one. hateless 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm tend to have pretty rigorous standards when it comes to bootlegs/mixtapes. I've had around 200 mixtapes deleted in Category:Mixtape albums through PRODs and AfDs, but this is the case of a notable bootleg. Review sites are certainly not trivial in nature and unlike this album, most bootlegs can't expand from a track list. This can definitely expand into a more comprehensive article. Spellcast (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a bootleg or mixtape by any stretch; numerous non-trivial mentions in dead tree sources such as ISBNs 0879307595, 1841956155, 0743201698, 1841958603 and 097677352X. east.718 at 23:04, January 27, 2008
Keep. Notable album by a notable musician, even if it is a bootleg. Terraxos (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Album had several singles released that received attention from MTV and the radio before it was shelved, partly due to the artist's highly publicized shooting. In addition, a promotional EP containing 5 songs from the album WAS commercially released. If this isn't a "notable bootleg album", nothing is. Swiffy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Doesn't seem to be a notable bootleg album" is a nonargument and the AMG review (for instance) is a nontrivial source.P4k (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4, keep Da Drought 3. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Drought 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Don't seem to be notable mixtapes; the only sources on the former don't seem very reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given that notability for Da Drought 3 has been proven, I am removing it from this nomination. However, I am still keeping the nom open for further discussion on the other album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry, have to disagree on this one. The Village Voice has two articles – The Boston Globe reviewed and lastly Billboard does have a brief mention all shown here [43]. In addition, any album that generates as many hits on plain old Google as shown here [44] is impressive. Shoessss | Chat 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those news searches seem to warrant significant coverage -- the Village Voice is just one paragraph at the most, as is the Boston Globe; the Billboard ref is even shorter. Almost all of the GHits seem to be lyrics, tabs, or download sites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by apologizing to the editors that will read this. Yes, I am on my soapbox. Wikipedia is developing into be an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, its purpose is to help individuals find information and facts, that are verifiable and reliable, on subjects such as; locations – people – music – books –etc –etc. What constitutes notable and significant is extremely WP:POV as this discussion shows. What is notable for me is not necessarily considered notable by another. However, should we be prevented from providing that information because some think that it is not significant enough? Is not the basic concept and mandate of Wikipedia to provide information? I would rather error on the side of providing information, since we are not limited by how much paper we use, than to discard knowledge because some may think the sources provided are insignificant. However, when creditable – verifiable and reliable sources are provided, they should not be dismissed as insignificant especially when the sources are Village Voice – The Boston Globe and Billboard. Thanks for listening everyone, back to real life. Shoessss | Chat 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep Da Drought 3 because it was listed on Rolling Stone's "Top 50 Albums of 2007" (quite impressive for a mixtape) and it has a professional review from Pitchfork Media. I'm not sure about The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 at the moment. Spellcast (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 due to very little notability and mainstream media coverage; keep Da Drought 3. It's received three writeups in The Village Voice, two in The Boston Globe (Newsbank ID 11A53AF7F63B3D60 and this) and two in Pitchfork, as well as various mentions in The Washington Post, Star Tribune, and Michigan Daily, Times Record News (Wichita TX). It made Rolling Stone's top 50 albums of the year and also won runner-up in its category at the Ozone Awards. east.718 at 20:49, January 27, 2008
Delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 as lacking notability established by reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not an encyclopaedic topic. It contains more the titles of his songs than actual information in the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin’ Backstabber/Soul Intent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fuckin’ Backstabber/Soul Intent

Doesn't seem to be a notable demo tape; fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only hits were Wikipedia and mirror sites with a few blogs thrown in for good measure. It’s a shame, some people spent some time working the article. Shoessss | Chat 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there seemed to be quite a bit of work in this article. But, I have to say that it seems non-notable and does fail on sources. It also seems like a bit of an excuse to use the "f-word" a lot. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, what Korn said. س (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no prejudice to being recreated with more reliable sources. Spellcast (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Intent (album)[edit]

Non-notable demo tape; fails WP:MUSIC. This quote says it all: "The songs and the track listing have not been leaked to the internet yet". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is non-notable, but if we just went off of "The songs and the track listing have not been leaked to the internet yet," then we should bring up Steppin' onto the Scene for deletion too. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Very well, however I would recommend this be merged to Soul Intent. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like much can be written about the album at the moment. It surely deserves a mention in the main article though. No prejudice to it being recreated with reliable sources and comprehensive info. Spellcast (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Soul Intent along the other demos Udonknome (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Carter[edit]

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC with no significant secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A check of All Music Guide shows that his two albums were self released. No proof can be found that he played for any other notable musicians; otherwise I might !vote for a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn back into a redirect [45] Mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Buddy Carter's real name? I'm confused. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This biography lists his name as Earl L. 'Buddy' Carter: [46] Terraxos (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Carter is William (son of Jimmy Carter), according to the article. Or is there a Jazz Buddy Carter I'm unaware of? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddy Carter article was originally about "William Carter", but was altered to be about "Earl Carter", and the redirect was then created by a bot. The article subject has since been changed back to William Carter. If the Earl Carter article is deleted, it should not be reverted back to a redirect. jwillbur 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn back into a redirect per Mgiganteus1 above. The musician does not appear to be notable, but the redirect is worth keeping as the real name of a (somewhat) notable person. Terraxos (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In My Ghetto[edit]

Article seems to be about a bootleg album by Akon. Fails WP:MUSIC. Admc2006 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know it is a bootleg, but so was Power of the Dollar by 50 Cent. And that album has its own article. Both In My Ghetto & Power of the Dollar were bootlegs, but that means they were still released digitally. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Per the fact that these types of albums aren't notable, I change my vote to delete. Rappingwonders (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From WP:MUSIC: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable. Also, I disagree with Rappingwonders per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bootlegs are generally not notable. This one seems to not have any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If bootlegs, mixtapes and demo tapes aren't notable, the following articles should also be nominated for deletion:
Dedication 2
Da Drought 3
The Drought Is Over Pt. 4
Soul Intent (album)
Fuckin’ Backstabber/Soul Intent
Power of the Dollar

And I'm sure that there are A LOT more if bootlegs, mixtapes and demo tapes are not notable as you say. Rappingwonders (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication 2 shows notability because it has what seems to be scads of sources. The others I'm not so sure of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate those for deletion too. Thanks for the offer! :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these albums/mixtapes/bootlegs/etc. are included in this AFD, then Keep all and break the AFD up again. Bootlegs and mixtapes are not completely and inherently non-notable, and frankly, that only hip-hop albums are included here is quite the bias...why isn't Prince's Black Album included as well?. Power of the Dollar is quite notable. hateless 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I favor keeping bootlegs if they have potential to expand from a mere track list, but this has no sources, charts, reviews or anything to develop into a more extensive article. Spellcast (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The Chronic 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Žan vidic[edit]

Not notable DimaG (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Could probably be speedied. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps speedily as it smells like a hoax... though his "famous phrase" has changed my outlook on life forever. Teleomatic (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The famous phrase could be better translated as "treat others as you would like to be treated". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academics & educators deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable. 216.194.1.222 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unlikely that sufficient reliable sources will be found to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Noquochoke[edit]

No assertion of notability. A Google News search for all dates, which would presumably include coverage of its closing if it was notable yields one result, an obit of someone who'd been a nurse there. Regular ghits consist primarily of maps and weather, no assertion of any significance. I'm no longer local but spent time in the area and don't recall ever hearing of the camp. I found this through "random" Travellingcari (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be provided (which looks unlikely). Terraxos (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jauerback just as AfD was opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMKB Computer Club[edit]

Nominated this page for deletion because it is not notable. Thebluesharpdude

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Patrello[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, no assertion of notability. Notability was asserted in being prominent on YouTube, the question whether this is enough to meet WP:BIO. I myself am undecided for the moment. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak Keep~~ - There is one pretty extensive article at Canadian TV as shown here [47]. However, other than that, all other hits are either You Tube or Blog. Shoessss | Chat 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Terraxos (talk)research. Shoessss | Chat 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This one can go both ways. On one side, you can have the fact that he is very popular on YouTube. However, I wouldn't really consider that alone to be notable enough. However, many people would disagree since so many people browse YouTube each day, and that this guy is one of the top people on it. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Very Weak Keep. The Globe & Mail article linked above would seem to, by itself, meet the requirements of WP:BIO; but I have concerns about articles essentially based on a single source. Notability isn't obvious, but I'd say this guy just about passes the test. Terraxos (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. This person is the Internet celebrity 'Daxflame'; the previous article about him, Daxflame, has already been deleted twice at AFD and had deletion endorsed at Deletion Review. It should not have been recreated until it passes another deletion review. Terraxos (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it is recreated content or not, I don't see anything that indicates that the subject of this article meets WP:BIO. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this aticle For all the reasons I mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madison_Patrello - Plus it's not just his popularity on Youtube that makes Madison Patrello so fascinating, it's also the controversy behind his character of Daxflame and whether he's acting or not. All of this added up, plus his large fan base and significant "cult" following on Youtube, makes him meet WP:BIO guidlines. K69 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Lake Stevens School District. I will leave it to other editors to decide if to merge any content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Lake Middle School[edit]

Article is about a non-notable middle school. GreenGourd (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Lake Stevens School District. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gene93k. -Gwguffey (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to district. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to district as non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lake Stevens School District. Alansohn (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per availability of reliable sources fulfilling the verifiability and notability requirements as well as withdrawal of the nomination by User:Slofstra in light of universal keep opinions as indicated below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooneyites[edit]

The article Cooneyites consists entirely of either 'Original research' in violation of WP:NOR or based on self-published materials WP:SPS. As such the text is simply a repository for edits both pro and con with no WP:V. There is no chance that the editors of the article will be able to rectify this issue as no reputable materials (either scholarly work) or credible historical book on the group's history exists. The group has only 200 members! Note the Patricia Roberts book is not from a credible publisher. William Trimble is a printer in Northern Ireland, not a publisher. The other references are obvious SPS. The article is skinny on references. What references exist refer to SPS web sites. Slofstra (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar shows several hits as noted here [48]. Google News has additional information, as shown here [49]. With at least two of the articles being from the New York Times and lastly good old Google with at least one additional mention from the New York Times, as shown here [50]. Regarding WP:OR the article is referenced, as noted on the page. Are more cites needed, yes, but not a reason to delete. Shoessss | Chat 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found references to this group at the New York Times, the meta-religion registry, cult-tracking and awareness sources, etc etc. Certainly enough reliable third-party information to create a reasonable article from. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Christian Conventions. It looks like the Cooneyites were a split from this group. Cooney and the Cooneyites (sounds like a band) are talked about a bit on that page. If there's not enough to create an article here, at least merge it with that article which is much more robust. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The group does exist and there are several passing or abbreviated references to the group, as Google Scholar indicates. The references described above are one sentence passing references. No scholarly research has been done on the group; no work from a credible publisher. Doesn't that also violate WP:NOTE? A question. Do deletion rulings consider only the potential of the topic or also look at the current article, per se. The comments above make no reference to the current article. Slofstra (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ShinmaWa, the 'cult-tracking' site does not look like a reliable source to me. It is self-published also! Can this be used as a source on wiki? I don't see this kind of tracking web site listed in WP:SOURCES. Did you read the NYT article - 400 words from 1906? Hardly much to base an article on, is it? One mainstream media reference from 1906? But I'm surprised you found that much. Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shoesss who indicates article is not OR. The article is a combination of OR and references to SPS. There is not a single sentence that is not one or the other, IMO. The article only has two citations, one is to a long list in Hansard including the word 'Cooneyites'; the speaker in Parliament is equating Cooneyites in importance with the religion Jedi Knights in joking about the British census. The second reference is to a SPS work. The rest of the article is not cited; therefore it must be OR also. Shoesss, what am I missing here?Slofstra (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise suggestion is to delete all NOR and SPS info in the article and the resulting stub be merged into Restorationist. If additional cited material is then added instead of the agenda-driven material currently used, then break the article out into its own topic. P.S. It may happen if someone writes a historical thesis or performs research on the group under the auspices of a recognized academic institution. A quick perusal of the links in that article shows there are other groups which should not have their own article for similar reasons, as they are not WP:NOTE. Keeping these topics bundled in fewer articles makes it much easier for editors such as myself who are gatekeeping in the area of new religions. Compare to how Jehovah's Witnesses is cited and easily cited. The difference is that the latter group is WP:NOTE; so it has been referenced in academic articles and responsible mainstream publications. Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors please actually read the article and also read WP:SOURCES. Do you want wiki to fill up with this kind of article because of your laxity in enforcing wiki standards. Please rigorously enforce your own standards for wiki's integrity and its appeal to legitimate scholars and writers depends on it. My concern is that the whole area of new religions is teeming with opinionated, amateur researchers who are using the web to self-publish. That's fine; it's called freedom of speech. But they do not know about cross-checking, avoiding libel, and academic standards. Now this material is spilling over into wiki. This is not a small problem. A quick perusal of articles referred to in Restorationist reveals that there are more articles like this, built purely out of web-based self published material. If we can coalesce some of this material into fewer topics it will be easier for gate-keeping editors such as myself to work in this area.Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh you are going to drag me into working on this article – aren’t you. If this article does get deleted, can the administrator or editor who closes the discussion send the article to me. I’ll work on it in my spare time. If not deleted, I will put on my things to do list. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to why you'd want to work on this. Plus, how would you solve the issue of no WP:SOURCES Slofstra (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, I believe the New York Times is a very real and verifiable source that delineates notability. Second, I admit, and most people here at Afd know, I am an in_clusionist, which means I look for reasons to keep articles rather than delete. Finally, I find the areas of religion and philosophy fascinating. I will look at this editing job as the opportunity to pick up another pebble of knowledge that I can put in my keep bag :-).Shoessss | Chat 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about preserving the article, you need only copy and paste from the edit window for now. Then later either find someone who is running wiki software or install your own. Don't know how to do, but I know it is done.

The group was mentioned once in the NYT in 1906 in a brief article; that does not make the topic WP:NOTE. Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Remove or substantiate anything that seems to be “original research” or not founded on “reliable sources”. But this article can provide the sort of information that would from a user perspective distinguish Wikipedia from just an on-line version of any other encyclopedia. When I read reference to the Cooneyites (or the like), I don't want to have to chase around on the Web, nor to I want to lurk in the library for a few weeks. —SlamDiego_←T 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would respectfully suggest that not everything that can be found on the Web should be placed in wiki for the sake of convenience.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since no one has asserted or implied that everything should, I would suggest that your point is too hyperbolically expressed to be useful. If you want productive dialogue (and any chance of converting your opponents), then you are going to need to fairly capture what the opposition is saying. —SlamDiego_←T 13:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only meant that convenience is not relevant to the issue of whether the article is WP:NOT or WP:V. Whether I convert anyone is not so much an issue for me. People are entitled to their opinion; it doesn't have to be the same as mine, but I would like to see some focus on the issue. I do appreciate your POV. If I follow your advice the article will be editted to a stub, so why would you recommend keep? And I have the option to begin pruning the article, which is quite acceptable to me, but will definitely lead to edit wars, disputes, appeals to protection, and so on. I know as I have been through this before. Unfortunately, this article is built from WP:SPS from anti-Restorationist types doing OR. Please see my challenge below. Slofstra (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What I said was plainly contrary to any notion that convenience met the verifiability requirements, or that it off-set the lack thereof; I wish that you would stop slapping at straw-men. I recommend keeping the article because, while it might be editted to a stub were my advice taken (that claim is plainly under dispute by other editors), I'm sure that the formal requirements of Wikipedia (such as they are) can be met, and the article is the sort of thing that truly benefits users, including those (such as I) who have no keen interest in the specifics of Christian hivings. —SlamDiego_←T 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I fully realize that neither you or anyone are asserting convenience as a prerequisite to WP:V and I'm not trying to insult you. There is a serious issue here which you raise which is usability, which is increased by having this article, and integrity, which is decreased whenever we slacken on WP:V. We would both agree that you can't have 100% on both sides, there is a trade-off, and what's at issue here is where the line is drawn. And I very much discount 'convenience' in this case, although I am in favour of a redirect. Slofstra (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to misunderstand the system here. There can be 100% on one side. Proportional representation doesn't obtain here, and representation proportional to rhetoric certainly doesn't obtain. The closing admin won't say “My, this fellow or lass Slofstra has written almost half the words on the page, and so we shall compromise 50-50.” Instead, he or she will note that all but two-or-three editors said that the article should be kept, and say that consensus was for that — unless, of course, you can manage to persuade people that they should change their minds. Misrepresenting positions (deliberately or innocently) won't help you; nor will acting as if other editors must yield to you. I suspect that you've rendered your position unrecoverable in any event, but if you cannot succeed without a radical change in your approach. —SlamDiego_←T 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite possibly I do misunderstand 'the system' as the AFD process is all new to me, but not in the way you think. You misunderstood my comments, and, I fear, my intentions also as a consequence. Allow me to clarify. The percentage comments are not about the outcome of this particular AFD request. I was saying that as a wikipedia goal you can't have 100% convenience/usability or 100% integrity. That from a practical point of view you must compromise these two ideals. I don't think you would disagree with that as it's a rather obvious statement. Then I characterized our respective positions without prejudice to say that I'm very strong on integrity whereas you would be stronger on usability or convenience. Slofstra (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please see my personal summary below; there have been solutions suggested here short of deletion that are perfectly acceptable to me. I would hope that whoever closes this article will look at the strength of the arguments, as opposed to the number of votes. You will always see a significant bias towards keep in part because writers are emotionally and creatively attached to their work and viewpoints. In other words, writers do not always make good editorial decisons. But I'd be quite happy with redirect and merge to Christian Conventions, which I've learned is how the Library of Congress resolved the issue. My main concern here has been the serious and palpable issues with the sources used in this article. In part, as a writer/ editor I'm evaluating the viability of wikipedia as to whether or not it's somewhere I'd be proud of working, and a source I would trust, or just an ideological battleground. The policies of wikipedia would point in the former direction, but you can read for yourself that other editors, with all respect, characterize themselves as inclusionists, and think that we need to be easy on beginners (don't bite the newbies), give the article a chance, and so on. At this more general level of debate I don't claim to have all the answers but I know what my position is, and I think that the debate is an important one. I've outlined my general position on my talk page, and maybe this is worthy of a talk subject (something I didn't know was an option until today). I have shown point by point how there is not ONE reliable secondary source for this article. Let's follow the bouncing ball. I state the article has no WP:V. I understand that WP:NOT is a contentious issue here, and I'm pleased that editors have stated they would clean up the article. So I ask, clean it up with what? Let's take a look at the sources before you waste your time. The answer comes back, we have a NYT article. But as I've since determined, and no one has refuted, that's a primary source. So the particular question of sources is still a serious issue and has not been addressed to my satisfaction. When I say "my satisfaction", I say with all humility and respect to my own POV, you may well be satisfied with something else, and if I'm not satisfied I'll accept the verdict and adjust accordingly. I hope the resolution is Redirect and merge, and then we can look at the content of this article point by point as a further study and education in what WP:V means in practice.Slofstra (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I agree with you, slamdiego, in that to all appearances I've been somewhat overbearing in my style of argumentation. I tend towards strong statements and vehement argumentation, at my peril, but I can't help that I was born in the Netherlands. :) At the same time, to put it mildly, I have not seen, in many of the verdicts, any serious effort in establishing whether good secondary sources exist for this article, or in looking at how the existing article is structured. The way I read this is that many editors are content with the existence of either primary or tertiary sources. But this clearly is not in alignment with wiki policy. My point would be, either change the policy or drill down and see if there are any secondary sources. I know there are a large number of unreliable sources in this area, and that doesn't mean that they are untrue or entirely untrue, but their reliability is unknown, the POV in these sources is usually strongly 'anti-' or strongly 'pro-', so do you want these sources to be mined for content in wiki? Because that is what is actually happening. Slofstra (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop writing padded dissertations here. Anything and everything that you have had to say could have been said much more briefly.
        
        Don't attempt to categorize my position as a willingness to sacrifice integrity for anything; it's not.
        
        I'm not going to read your personal summary below. I'm not even going to finish reading the paragraph which begins with your asking me to do so, unless you pay me some money to do so and you attend to my explanation as to how you could have expressed its ideas far more concisely.
        
        Your style does not come across as overbearing; it comes across as pompous, and your confusion of the former with the latter reinforces that impression. Overbearing rhetoric would have more efficacy. —SlamDiego_←T 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So does this mean you don't love me anymore, you big baby? Slofstra (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It means that you are wasting the time of everyone, including your own. As to whether anyone has ever loved you, I cannot say. —SlamDiego_←T 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose you consider that your prickly modus operandus -- which includes 1)a critique of style over substance, 2) a reading in of antagonistic intonation where none exists, 3) an obtuse tendency to distort my remarks, 4) no engagement to the main issues at hand, and 5) pronouncement of your conclusions without support -- to be conducive to reaching consensus. And this present conversation with you notwithstanding I think the dialogue here has teased out some important issues -- for my benefit anyway; I can't speak for anyone else. You might care to read at least the very last two paragraphs which I added earlier today. Slofstra (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I critiqued what substance there was until you used a sea of verbal inefficiency as if to off-set the paucity of substance.
        
        No, I responded plainly to plain content (until, as I said, the ocean of words washed away hope that you'd make an better case).
        
        No, either you express yourself badly (beyond mere inefficiency), or you reinterpret your remarks when they prove ineffectual under their plain meaning.
        
        No, I engaged the main issue in my original comment and in my replies to you until you ceased to do so. And your earlier claim that I was arguing for sacrificing integrity to convenience cannot be reconciled with your new charge that I wasn't engaging the main issue. (But, after all, you're now just frustratedly groping for a plausible charge.)
        
        No, the support was at hand in each case. The only unsupported claim was your pretense that I would sacrifice the integrity of the article for other goals.
        
        Consensus has already been reached, it is for keeping the article.
        
        These discussions aren't intended to be a place for you to work-out your world-view. You need to find a chat-room, salon, or saloon for that.
        
        The passages in this world each of which I might read are in totality far more than I can read. While it is hypothetically possible that something that you have written elsewhere (below or otherwise) could be read profitably, I make my best guess based upon such things as what I have read from you. I think that I'd care more to spend my time otherwise. —SlamDiego_←T 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You still misunderstand my point of view, my friend. Let the course of our present conversation be all my fault then: this is all just drivel. You might get more here Talk:Cooneyites#Proposed direction for this article, and here User_talk:Slofstra#Basis for writing articles on religious groups, where I've put a little more thought into it. Not to mention those last 2 paragraphs I added earlier today; I have no problem working within the consensus view. Slofstra (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I'm not planning to pursue further study of your philosophy, in application to the article or otherwise. —SlamDiego_←T 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The only relevant statement which you've made is a back-handed "I'm sure that the formal requirements of Wikipedia (such as they are) can be met", which is exactly the question under review, and was offered by you without detailed examination or support. And you continue to display your lack of engagement and indifference to the question at hand. How can you then in good conscience offer a recommendation? I don't wish to instigate you to re-argue the question of the AFD which verdict I have lost, and not without substantive reasons; my point here is the stand-offishness which has marked the tenor of your entire commentary.Slofstra (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my original comment contains relevant statements (and the imperative “Remove or substantiate anything that seems to be “original research” or not founded on ‘reliable sources’.” plainly implies some relevant claims). Your problem is that I haven't responded your replies as worthy argumentation. You slapped at straw-men, and produced rhetoric analogous to the hippopotamus in Fantasia — over-large and pirouetting, and I told you not to do such things. What was at hand was your behavior, and I responded to that. I might be willing to enable your behavior if I saw that it were important to persuade you that the article is salvageable and that a salvaged article is desirable, but nothing signals such importance to me. —SlamDiego_←T 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Shoessss (talk · contribs) indicated some significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V sources. However, there are a large amount of additional sources here (Notice the presence of books written solely about the Cooneyites). I'll work on expanding this article with all these sources mentioned above, standardize it and reformat the citations/references section and cleanup the article overall. Cirt (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use those sources, the article will contract not expand; check them. I suggest we merge the article and when you've built a BRAND NEW one, open the edit window and post it. I will settle for the article being reduced to a stub, and a reference added to Restorationism. Incidentally, why do you think no WP:SOURCESwere used by the article editors? In retrospect a dumb idea, better to merge to Christian Conventions and break out later if section can grow from reliable sources.Slofstra (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources included. --GwydionM (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept then I sincerely hope someone updates WP:V and WP:SOURCES to indicate the specific situations in which SPS and OR are allowed in the interests of "finding reasons to keep articles" rather than delete. Slofstra (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor responses here imply that the present content of the article is 'citable' and the question is simply that this work has not been done. My point is that none of the material in the article exists in credible sources as listed in WP:SOURCES. It all comes from the personal research of the article editors as well as self-published web sites. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group clearly exists, and is sufficiently notable, if somewhat obscure. If there are concerns about specific claims in the article that aren't backed by the sources provided, then those claims can be challenged or removed, but the article itself should not be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, Terraxos: The sources provided are self-published. You mean those as well?

IMO, the editors responding here who work in the Religion area have a high tolerance for WP:NOR and WP:V violations. As someone who has a B.A. in English Language and Literature, and has at least a sense for what academic standards demand in writing, this test case is telling me something about the policies advertised by 'wikipedia': they are more honoured in the breach than the observance. I'm quite disappointed, but I can't blame writers who don't want to be constrained by editorial standards. This may be a flaw in wikipedia's structure, writers should not be involved in editorial functions; it's a conflict of interest.Slofstra (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: That is not a fair estimation of what is being said in this discussion. Several editors have noted that though the article itself at the present time might not be up to par as far as sourcing per Wikipedia's standards, it has been brought to our attention - and it soon will be. We have also shown you through links to many sources that the subject matter is covered in books, news articles, and by academic scholars in journal articles - all in writings that do not address the subject tangentially - but rather address the subject directly, often incorporating the name of the group into the title of pieces dealing directly with it. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps, it would indeed be nice to be proven wrong on this last point. But none of these sources have been used in the existing article. No-one here has tried to argue that the article as it stands has even a modicum of WP:V. What do you say then, that we stub the article and make a fresh start?
  
  I have looked through the sources provided once more. 1) The sources indexed by Google and above are either SPS (e.g. Parker) or polemical (e.g. Irvine) or very brief religious encyclopedia type entries. There are a few newspaper articles of Cooneyite gatherings which are of peripheral use in creating an article. 2) A challenge to you, Cirt, to back up the conclusions you have made: show me just one or two papers written by academic scholars which have appeared in peer-reviewed or refereed historical or religious studies journals; I don't need a list. My own take is that the heavy scholarly lifting required to produce a paper or thesis on the Cooneyites such that the work would pass peer review, has not been done. If I am correct, the article will stay a stub though I dare say 100 words of proper WP:V could be written about the group. If you are correct, we will get much more. But whatever we get it will be WP:V and that is what we all want, right? Slofstra (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, it will be WP:V. Slofstra (talk · contribs), you seem to be applying a much more rigorous standard as far as your own personal requirements for sourcing - than that set out by consensus as per Wikipedia policy on this project. We are going in circles now, and this is pointless. I and others agree the article is not adequate in its present state, and could use some work. I and others agree that there are plenty of sources out there to expand the article, currently not used in the article. I will work on it, but I'll wait for the AfD to close before expanding it further, & fixing cleanup issues, and removing WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  You might be right. I struggle, as I'm sure do others, on what constitutes WP:RS in this area. On the issue of WP:RS the problem is the use of primary sources such as newspaper articles of events, journals, diaries, religious leaflets and bulletins, and so on. It would seem to me that building an article out of such sources is violation of WP:NOR. However, WP:Reliable_source_examples has information on using such sources, but also indicates that such articles must have at least one secondary source; I assume to establish WP:NOT. The article WP:Reliable_source_examples#History would be thought helpful but it doesn't distinguish cleanly between wiki sourcing and historical scholarly research. The entire area of using primary sources, between what's in WP:NOR and WP:RS seem fuzzy, and that might be me, or it might be the policies themselves. Slofstra (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourceable, as is the group's notability. For ex, here's a New York Times article, apparently from 1909 when the sect was much bigger. There may or may not be original research and unverifiable stuff in there, but there's also verifiable content, so the correct course is to improve rather than delete. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=990CEEDF143EE033A25757C0A96E9C946897D6CF. Wikidemo (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep and clean up. With an option to renominate if no work is done to fix the problem. I am a moderate deletionist: I have seen many an article kept on "potential for growth" grounds... but once the article is "kept", little or no attempt is actually made to improve and grow it. However, in this case it does sound as there are additional sources, and that there is some potential for growth. Before we opt to delete we do need to see if the problem can be fixed. If no work is actually done, then we can revisit the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Myself and one other editor have stated in this AfD that we will work on this article, re: cleanup and sourcing. I can't speak for the other editor, but If the AfD is closed as keep, I will. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt's link to google books, reliable, published sources exist. Dsmdgold (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A review. I know you folks have good reasons for wanting to keep this article in Wiki, and I've softened a little on my position. But I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on how you will be able to accomplish this. First, all seem to agree that the article has WP:V issues, although consensus on the extent of the problem is lacking. The 'Keep' arguments pretty much all say, there's good sources, the articles can be fixed. I'm not sure if it is wise to keep an article based purely on the possibilities inherent in the topic or should the decision rest on the article, per se? If the article is deleted, and someone re-institutes the article based on WP:V there is nothing to prevent it. Deletes are never final.

I do know and agree that primary source materials about the history of the Cooneyites exist, esp from turn of the Century. Here is the text of the much touted NY Times article, as an example:

CROWDS AWAIT MILLENIUM/ Cooneyites Hold Prayer Meetings and Baptize Hundreds Daily in Ireland./

In the belief that the millennium may be ushered in at any moment, more than 2000 "Cooneyites" are holding continuous prayer meetings at Ballinamallard, County Fermanagh. The pilgrims have arrived from all parts of the country, and remarkable scenes are witnessed. Hundreds of persons are baptized publicly in the river every day, and the converts are sleeping in the open air on the farm of the leaders (NY Times, 1909).

My background is in English, not History. Is it permissible in wiki to produce historical analysis using primary source materials? Has anyone run into this issue? Because if you rewrite this article, that is what you will have to do; this still sounds like OR to me. When I use wiki as a historical reference, I see mainly secondary, not primary source materials, used to build articles, with the specific exception of current events and issues. Interested to hear what you may think. Slofstra (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above comments from multiple users. There are plenty of secondary sources available and we will use those. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not agreed that there are "verifiability" issues: I flatly deny it. The group definitely existed, was once prominent and is now minor but still around. No sensible objection has been raised to any specific thing it says.--GwydionM (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to challenge the group of writers - instead of posting Google lists - find ONE good WP:V source on this group. Just one source, not a list. The reason I am asking this is because I'm constantly confronted by edits from WP:SPS and many writers do not seem to understand WP:V. Folks, how about we get some agreement on what sources do exist before we run off to possibly wasted effort in rewriting this article.Slofstra (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding a possible merge to Christian Conventions. It turns out the term 'Cooneyites' appearing in sources before 1928 actually refers to the group described under Christian Conventions, pejoratively known as Two by Twos. (I am a member of this group, BTW). Then in 1928, I believe, Cooney split or was ejected from the group, probably both, and began his own group, taking the term Cooneyites with him. Slofstra (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Slofstra, first a verifiable – reliable and creditable source has been cited on this page, several time, The New York Times. Secondly, you have injected a very WP:POV in you statement that; “…”I am a member of this group, BTW (Two by Twos).”, which may make for a very biased opinion on your part in that the Cooneyites can be considered a splinter group of your professed faith, as noted in the article. Thirdly, what is wrong with stubbing the article. As I stated above, along with other editors, the piece will be worked on. In reviewing the history of the article, I have noted that User:SlamDiego has already done some bit work in reviewing the article and I have done some preliminary work with regards to grammar and have tagged for other editors to get involved. Finally, an article does not just magically appear here on Wikipedia as a shining example of journalism or scholarly work, but evolves over time with the help of volunteer editors improving both the content and prose’s. Thanks Shoessss | Chat 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed my comment on the NY Times article just above. I will move it here. From [51], a newspaper is a primary resource when reporting an event. Use of the NY Times article mentioned would then be a violation of [WP:NOR]]. Slofstra (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misconstrued my reference, the first criteria of Wikipedia is to establish notability. In referencing the The New York Times we are establishing the fact of notability. Hence, a notable subject, which qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia! Regarding the article itself, I agree with you! It does need work. However, needing to be reworked, is not a criteria for deletion. Looks like we are on the same page, just different books :-). Shoessss | Chat 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Good point. In light of comments below which are crossing mine, this is now largely a moot point. But I am still curious on the question of whether something which has no WP:V sources could be written up in 'wiki'. It strikes me that there are an entire class of topics at the fringes of established knowledge which arguably are notable, but on which no work has been done outside wiki. To oversimplify somewhat, wiki is a tertiary source which relies on secondary sources. You're establishing notability based on the existence of primary sources, but you cannot write an article based on those.Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments here pro- or con- the group or groups under consideration. We are discussing technical issues regarding WP:V, to which POV is irrelevant. The ground laid out on WP:V is quite clear actually, we shouldn't have any POV issues with it. The fact I am or am not a member is something people are entitled to know. I am sympathetic to all Restorationist groups including Cooneyites, although I have never met one. I actually don't know much about the group, Cooneyites. I would like to work on 'Local_church' next which also needs a lot of work. Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that articles don't magically appear, and my goal is the same as yours. Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am really trying to do here is drill down on what WP:V means for the area of Restorationist religious groups, an area I'm interested in. I think it's a very, very important discussion. If we can establish some basis on what kinds of articles can or cannot be used in building wiki in this area, it will save a lot of repetitive discussion on a line by line basis, not to mention 'edit wars'. I've put this in the form of a challenge; I hope you see some value in trying to meet that challenge and prove me wrong. With 6 or 7 editors in this discussion, if each finds one, we should be able to have a very useful discussion. And if there are none, well, the implication is fairly obvious, I would think.Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. (after ec) I believe Shoessss is misunderstanding what Slofstra is saying. This article claims to discuss the Cooneyites as an entity distinct from the Christian Conventions, and so the NYT article, from before that split, is not a reference for this article. In most of the Google scholar links, "Cooneyite" is referring to the Christian Conventions and not those who followed Cooney when he split. For instance, Journal of Religious History, vol 17, no 1 (1992), reviewing the Parkers book, refers to "one notable exception: little has been written about the Cooneyite or Go-Preachers or Nameless Ones" - equating all three names. The only sourced content currently in the article which discusses the Cooney followers after the split is the UK 2001 census. That can be merged to Christian_Conventions#Origins_and_History. Since the name is notable, a redirect should remain. Gimmetrow 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gimmetrow a very fair compromise, that-- ShinmaWa^(talk) actually proposed from the beginning. Which I should have listen too :-). I see nothing wrong with that! Shoessss | Chat 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun you guys. Too much drama. :) Shoessss (talk · contribs), if you're interested in some help on the article and it ends up not being deleted, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend my statement above. The current link for the UK census reference is a transcript saying that "Cooneyism" is in the list of religions from the census; it doesn't give a count. I have tried searching through the UK census data, and have been unable to verify a census count. Furthermore, it's not clear (to me) that such a count if found would involve only the post-split followers of Cooney, so I'm not sure that's a good reference, either. Gimmetrow 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have consensus on merge/ redirect, and I am not assuming that we do although I would favour it, the question then becomes what do we incorporate into the Christian Conventions article. I'd like to see fairly clean text with no issues before it is moved, which to my mind means removing quite a bit of OR and also some POV stuff. I have opened a discussion on this on the article page. Slofstra (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in principle, since all religious groups that have or have had a demonstrable existence should have WP articles. I think there is enough evidence that there was a split, and that this fraction has remained distinct; this is the basic requirement. This is one area where I think it essential to avoid the possibility of considering the unfamiliar to be unimportant. We have not the least business trying to decide the relationship between the various parts of the various movements, and should do what we always do, which is to report what is said about them. If there is relatively little information, the article should use whatever is available. If we think the information is not as reliable as we would like, qualify it. But I recognize the difficulty in writing articles about groups without a formal structure, or which keep the structure they do have undocumented; this is about as undocumentable as it is possible to get and still have any way of writing an article. The content would not be dissimilar from what we would have in an integrated article, which probably would be another alternative. there is an advantage in merging, a it would keep the sparse amounts of actual material in context without repetition. The alternative if kept separately is to expand the historical context here. I share what I understand as Slofstra's concern about the possible disappearance of the material. I should mention that Shoessss invited me to comment--but unfortunately the only real way to resolve this is to hope that someone does a proper study and publishes the research.DGG (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~To clarify, I did not invite you to comment.~~ I disagree strongly with your proposal for a basis in researching and writing articles about religious groups. You said, "If there is relatively little information, the article should use whatever is available". Someone else said, "it is better to have no information, than to have information with no sources." By breaking WP:V you open the door to gossip, received notions and rumour-mongering. On the contrary, WP:V is even more important when writing articles about such groups since there are very strong pro- and con- opinions and WP:V is the one way to ensure the process doesn't break down into edit wars. Slofstra (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the issue comes down to this, since you seem to be somewhat okay with merging, what should be moved? It's not practical to move the entire text, as is. As mentioned and linked I've opened a discussion on that point. Slofstra (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there Slofstra, I was the one that asked DGG to comment. I have always found his/her opinion to be constructive and insightful. I have re-thought a few opinions :-) after his/her comments.Shoessss | Chat 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the other reference to my name could be corrected also. :) I've no doubt DGG is being constructive, but I believe you inclusionists are really very wrong for a lot of reasons. See my talk. Slofstra (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHH he is old and forgetful , so we cut him a little slack in the area of what name he calls us. :-). Regarding the discussion, how about we move it to the article's talk page, as you suggested, and let other editors comment on the Keep or Delete of the article itself. Good night all and thanks for the laughs. Shoessss | Chat 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. For the benefit of anyone working on AFDs I checked on User:Shoessss point that the existence of a primary source can establish notability for a given topic. It states very clearly in WP:NOT that sources used to establish notability must be secondary sources. That being what it may, my original request for deletion was based on a lack of WP:V not on WP:NOT. I agree with the suggestion of a section in Christian Conventions with a redirect for 'Cooneyites'. If the section grows it can always be broken out into an article once more. Is this acceptable? Slofstra (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I know I've hung tough on a number of points, but the main reason has been to provide clarification for my self on how WP:V should apply in the areas I'm working in. I've summarized the current status of my thinking on my talk page. I'm not vested into the specific outcome of this case, but my general concern is that too much unverified, controversial material exists in many articles in the Restorationist area. So any outcome that ameliorates that general concern is acceptable to me. I appreciate the fact that some effort and energy has been expended by other editors on this AFD. Slofstra (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup from above. The sources I have looked at which refer to "Cooneyites" use the term synonymously with Christian Conventions, Go-preachers, Two-by-twos and so forth. That means pretty much everything in the first two pages of Google Scholar, and everything based on the Parkers book (like reviews), are actually references for Christian Conventions. So while the *name* is notable: 1) most reliable sources use "Cooneyites" to refer to Christian conventions, 2) the minimal existing content which might use "Cooneyites" to refer to Cooney's followers (the 2001 UK census, and the 1990 Roberts ref if it's reliable) may not actually be about Cooney's followers, and 3) the name is primarily used for a different group, so "Cooneyites" would need disambiguation if there were to be a separate article. Gimmetrow 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the oft-referred to 'Parker/Secret Sect' is a SPS. Have you found a good secondary source in this general area of Cooneyites/Christian Conventions/Two by Twos? My previous challenge refers to the Cooneyites as a distinct group. But even in the case of Two by Twos I've found only one reputable secondary source (Jaenen) within which information is still scant. There are plenty of primary and tertiary materials though. Slofstra (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, above I cited a journal with a review of the Parkers book. The journal ought to be a reliable source in wiki terms. Gimmetrow 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A review of a self-published source? :) Ahhh, I don't know about that one, and it's not really a review, but in a section called 'Short Notices'. Slofstra (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the only valid secondary source I'm aware of (Jaenen). Here's what is says about 'Cooneyites'. "Edward Cooney ... found himself outside the fellowship with a rump of followers ... in 1928. ... Alec Buchan and Alfred and Sarah Magowan later identified with the Cooneyite ministry which soon disappeared leaving only a few scattered adherents who referred to themselves as the 'outcasts.' (Jaenen 530)" Slofstra (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My present position is to withdraw the request for deletion. ~~I will update later with reasons why.~~ Thanks I have learned a great deal. See also Talk:Cooneyites#Proposed direction for this article where I have consolidated some of the suggestions made here, as usual from my own POV. Slofstra (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that I made the AFD on the basis of the article as it reads, and its lack of verifiability. The efficacy of the article's current sources, on which I based my request, have received scant attention here. I've learned that I'm at odds with consensus, which: a) considers the future potential of the article, b) considers the topic's intrinsic notability. I certainly did not put any weight on either factor in considering my request. And I still believe that searching 'Google scholar' to determine notability should be irrelevant; that an article should be judged on the sources used in the article. From my own knowledge, I would agree that 'Cooneyites' are intrinsically notable in the sense that they existed, had a distinct doctrine, and so on. But if the article as it stands does not use a good secondary source then I believe that topic should not be considered notable. In short, I would put far more weight on the author to establish notability and cite the contents of the article. Another advantage of this approach is that it focuses debate on serious editorial considerations. REVISED Slofstra (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - Slofstra -- you are beginning to show some true insight into how Wikipedia does things and I think that if you stay on this path, you'll make a very good editor. What you said above is absolutely right. I think we can all agree that the article as it stands is not up to snuff. However, usually that alone is not enough for a delete. On subjects which are intristically notable, as you admit this one is, it is always considered better to improve over delete - as nearly all articles of any notability start off as stubs that are really not up to snuff. If we deleted every sub-par stub, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. For example, here's how teh featured article Rosa Parks started out. I'll admit that its sometimes difficult in separating the wheat from the chaff, but that's why we have these discussions. :) :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:27, 3 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 Redirect to Coach (comics). No viable content to merge (that hasn't been already) that I can see. Keeper | 76 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus (comics)[edit]

Non-notable comic book character who appeared in two issues of X-Force in 2001, being killed off in the second issue. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the character will be used again. Stephen Day (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into X-Force Doc Strange (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Coach (comics), X-Statix, or failing that X-Force. Also, Stephen, don't say "Prodded for deletion" if you're actually taking it to AFD instead. :) That's not the first time I've seen you do that - it can be confusing. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, what should I have listed in the edit summary instead. Stephen Day (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anything other than Prod, which is a completely different process - "proposing deletion", "sending to AFD", "deleting", or whatever sounds right. BOZ (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - OK, essentially there was no content in this article which wasn't already in Coach (comics). The only difference was that the items in Succubus (comics) were sourced, so I added the references in the Coach article. It's ready to be redirected and/or deleted, really not any more to be done. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh... I had completely forgotten that I added that content to the Succubus article myself a few days ago, so there never really was any content worth saving. :) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into X-Force. I don't mind which, but she doesn't seem notable on her own. Terraxos (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are several "Succubus"es in comics. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm open to merge but there isn't like there is anything to merge anyway --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, clearly meets notability standards. Stormie (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimo Williams[edit]

WP:NOT WP:BIO what has he done? Nothing. Buddy of Sinise!notability. Notability not inherited Kumqat1406 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No view on deletion, but the tone of the nomination here is objectionable. Let's not disparage a reputable living person in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creator here. I believe it meets notability criteria due to his musical work (symphony commissioned for West Point, works performed by known orchestras), and awards including Chicagoan of the Year in 2006 - all of which are sourced and cited. I don't quite get what the nominator is saying -- that Kimo is tied to Gary Sinise? The two have worked together, but I don't think that's where Kimo's notoriety stems from. It goes back to his work in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the article is perfect and would love feedback on how to improve it, but I don't think it should be deleted. Travellingcari (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article needs work, however. It barely meets notability as well; I myself have never heard of him and I've spent nearly fifteen years in LA. ― LADY GALAXY 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the creator. I've added new sourced and am happy to do whatever else people believe should be done to improve the article. There is a decent amount of news coverage, unfortunately most is paid access only. LADY GALAXY, any particular suggestions? The reason you may not have heard of him being in LA is that other than some dates with the Lt. Dan Band in the area, he's Chicago based. Travellingcari (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AFD nominator has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Travellingcari. --W.marsh 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm currently in a discussion with User:Secret as I 100% swear that this is my only account. As I said there, I frequently edit from an unsecure wireless connection and that's the only explanation I have. Travellingcari (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability as far as I can tell. The sources provided are sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academics & educators deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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