Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Red String (webcomic)===

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've proposed the deletion of Red String (webcomic). A simple Google search [1] implies its lack of notability (most of the results are self-referential), and the article does not give any indication of its notability or even verifibility. --Muna (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of goals scored by Raúl González

Hopeless statistics cruft. He has scored 207 league goals, nobody wants to read a list of every goal. No merge because that would be detrimental to the article quality. Punkmorten (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This is beyond unencyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Bad enough having lists of every international goal on players pages. No basis for keeping. no merge per Punkmorten --ClubOranje^Talk 06:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all above. – Pee Jay 08:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a collection of stats. Tavix (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete without merging. Good job we haven't got List of goals scored by Romario :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BanRay 09:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Arguez

Fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. GauchoDude (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Granted, he's borderline WP:BIO, but you have to split hairs to put him on either side of that border. Played a first team professional league game? No, not last year (his rookie season), but yes, he has now competed as a professional for teams in two different fully professional leagues (MLS [2], Bundesliga [3]) in friendly and reserve games. Played on two youth national teams[4]; 1st round draft pick, ~500 google hits[5], over 40 pages link here, headlines articles in the Washington Post[6][7]. Seems odd to AfD a year-old article when he's currently in the news for a $350K transfer to Hertha Berlin [8]. Disclosure: I watched him play for D.C. United and contributed to the article. -- Xsmith (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I just came upon the article today. Obviously I know who he is. Do I agree with the WP:BIO? No, but apparently we have to stick to the guidelines on Wikipedia or it loses credibility. Despite all his accolades, Arguez does not meet these requirements yet. I think he's a talented player with a great future, but playing by the rules he should be deleted until he features for Hertha in a league game. All other players have to stick to this law; a 19 year old player who hasn't featured in a league game in his career should not be the exception. GauchoDude (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played in a fully pro league. It's well established that reserve games and friendlies don't count. Recreate when he actually plays for Hertha's first team in a league or cup game. Now he's actually played. This in no way validates the keep !votes before he played though. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Keep (on condition of sources being added). In theory he doesn't pass the requirements for a football player, but there are plenty of sources out there, after his high profile transfer which if included in the article, would cause the article to pass WP:BIO regardless of his status as a football player. For example USA Today Welt (one of the biggest german newspapers) Sportbild (one of the biggest sporting magazines in germany). That was just on a very brief google search. When I have some time I may include these and others in the article. John Hayes^talk 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I am refering to the line "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". John Hayes^talk 09:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as per rationale of Xsmith and John Hayes. Note: I am the article's creator. GiantSnowman (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment According to the article, and his DC United profile which is linked, he had played 5 games for the U-20 National team which, being I believe the highest level of youth football in the US (excepting the Olympic team), makes him notable under rules for a football player anyway. I've removed the weak from my comment above John Hayes^talk 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Admin notes "Actually, that's a very good point - the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the US. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)" from the very similar ongoing deletion debate for the 2008 MLS SuperDraft picks here. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I probably should have clarified that, the highest level of youth football for the national team. John Hayes^talk 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete notability isn't temporary, and he currently fails WP:BIO. He may have a big future in the game, but if his career ended tomorrow, he wouldn't be WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Now played for Hertha. If people didn't rush in to create articles before they've played we wouldn't have had this problem. Please in future wait till they actually play. Peanut4 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment but as I mentioned above he already passes notability, even if he never plays a game of football, due to his coverage in the media, similar to the way Freddy Adu was notable before he played a game. John Hayes^talk 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the article can easily be recreated when the player makes an appearance for a team in a fully professional league. People should just stop jumping the gun when creating articles and wait until the player has played a competitive match. Robotforaday (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Now keep, as he has actually made an appearance. Robotforaday (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete does not meet notability criteria for footballers because he has not played in a fully professional league, if he ever does so the article can be restored. King of the North East 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep has played for various US national teams. м info (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is well established that unless you make a senior national team appearance which earns you a full international cap, playing for a national team doesn't make you noteworthy. GauchoDude (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per no pro appearances, but delete without prejudice of recreation should Arguez meet the criterion in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep having made a professional appearance today, he makes the notability criteria required. Hoo-Rah. See how easy it is?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep for U20 appearances, following recent debate at WP:FOOTY. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Now has played in a fully professional league (for Hertha). Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep after his appearance for Hertha BSC today. - fchd (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - easily and noncontroversially meets the WP:Football standards of one appearance. Interesting that it happened in the middle of the debate, but hey, there you go. matt91486 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - yes, interesting and indicative of the project's objective line drawn over notability. No debate, he's played a pro game, job done, article stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Me and the Pumpkin Queen

Non notable book that fails WP:FICT. There is no substantial coverage in secondary sources. The article is a stub on a non-notable topic with a plot summary. Pilotbob (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke about WP:FICT, but his clearly fail fails WP:BK criteria. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the book itself. The commentary in the reviews is not critical or analytical. The review content is aimed at children and some of the publications only seem to give positive reviews (for example, the Discovery Girls review). The book has not won any major literary awards, been adapted to a motion picture or TV show. It is not demonstrated that it is used in instruction in schools nor is the author historically significant. This book is clearly not notable. Pilotbob (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the reviews that I found on Academic Search Complete (the published ones without online links), you will see that the book is clearly notable, is recommended to children and even a broader audience due to the horticulutural references, and that the non-trivial independent reviews are indeed analytical and critical and consistent with reviews concerning many other books. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think Kirkus, Hornbook, School Library Journal, and Booklist always give positive reviews, you must not have read them. Kirkus especially has a reputation for being hard to please, and Hornbook isn't far behind. Those four are, along with Publishers Weekly, the important journals for American publishing for children. Getting notice in even one of them is hard -- four of them, then yes it's a notable book. Passes WP:BK #1. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable book that passes WP:FICT with substantial coverage in secondary sources concerning a notable topic. Article needs improvement only. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per above. I see indep sources on refs.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: a) It is a real book, not a fictional object, and so WP:FICT does not apply. The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. b) Given reviews by Kirkus, School Library Journal, Hornbook, and Booklist and being a Junior Library Guild Selection easily makes it notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The references that have been added seem to speak to reasonable notability for the book. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

James Doran

Non-notable actor, no claims of notability, only occasional guesting roles sporadically. Prod was removed with no legit reasoning. Corvus cornix_talk 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete yet to have that big break, so currently fails notability. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete He is not notable for his film roles, and I can't find any information about his theatre roles that would confer notability. Bláthnaid 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as prodder, prod was removed borderline vandalism, should have been restored and deleted. Secret ^account 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - film roles are all minor parts and there are no other indications of notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Humphrey Evans

Genealogical info, no claims of notability, prod was removed with no meaningful explanation. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The Military Cross, while a possible claim to notability, does not seem sufficient alone. He's already mentioned in his wife's biography. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would that not be an argument for merging it to the Cherry Drummond, 16th Baroness Strange article? — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The majority of it is already there. I don't believe a redirect for his name prior to marriage is needed if he's being included solely because of his wife. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete the Military Cross award, by itself, is no where near enough to meet notability criteria, his wife was notable but he seems not to be. RMHED (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The spouse of a peer is not inherently notable. Evans was a junior army officer who won the Military Cross which, whilst admirable, does not raise him high enough in the notability stakes to make him worthy of an article on Wikipedia, since it's shared with many, many thousands of others. He seems to have no other notable achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Espinoza

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also adding Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Eric Brunner, Mike Zaher, Alex Nimo, Ely Allen, Yomby William, Sean Franklin, Julius James and Josh Lambo to this AfD as they also fail WP:BIO by not having played in a fully pro league.

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, obviously, these players were all drafted in the first round of the 2008 MLS SuperDraft so their notability is obvious. In the case of Patrick Nyarko, he was an all-American for Virginia Tech and would obviously qualify under the "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" criterion of WP:BIO even if he weren't drafted. --B (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The "amateur" bit is generally disregarded in Football as it is a professional sport (see the last comment in this AfD on two similar players (which were deleted)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Well, the previous AFD was incorrect in my view, but not as flagrantly as this one. First round MLS draft picks are obviously notable. Patrick Nyarko, who is the highest pick of any of the aforementioned individuals, and was twice an all-American in college, is obviously notable regardless of anything else. Nyarko was a finalist for the Hermann Trophy, the soccer equivalent of the Heisman [9][10] and is the best soccer player in Virginia Tech history [11][12]. Unless you are planning to rewrite WP:BIO to state that the general notability criterion does not apply to soccer players, Nyarko's notability is obvious. In fact, I would much prefer for Nyarko to have a separate AFD because he is far and away the most notable of those mentioned here and if an incorrect decision were made to delete the others, compounding that by deleting Nyarko as well would be silly. --B (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment to Number 57. We appear to have different implementations of the word "amateur." Most, if not all, of the major team sports are played at a professional level; just as football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey are played at both professional and amateur levels in the US, so too is soccer. Division I in NCAA sports is at the highest level of amateur sports before athletes turn professional. WP:BIO is clearly satisfied as it states that athletes must "have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." All of the above meet this definition. Notability is clearly satisfied, whether or not you acknowledge or "regard" the system in place here in the United States. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      - The problem is that if these articles get kept, then it opens the floodgates to reinstate tonnes of articles (mostly on players from the Football Conference) which have been deleted based on the current criteria, as previously editors have stuck rigidly to rules in determining their position in AfD debates. Football is not classed as an Amateur sport, and therefore players cannot qualify as having played at the highest amateur level. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        A WP:WAX argument is not a valid argument for deletion. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        This is not WP:WAX, this is a serious concern that at least a hundred articles could be legitimately put up for DRV if this AfD fails, as it will set a precendent which goes against the current one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        It most certainly is WP:WAX, as well as WP:ALLORNOTHING, which is equally invalid. Your concern may be shared among a subset of editors who haven't the first clue about college soccer and the system as set up in the United States (a system that you have demonstrated is different from your professional and semi-professional system over there), but in an article about American players that meet the letter of WP:BIO with sources, WP:WAX does not a valid argument make. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        As noted below, the USL Premier Development League is actually the highest level of Amateur football in the US. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep on all. This most recent jihad on college soccer players (or should I say American soccer players? because we all know that's an oxymoron, don't we?) is one big WP:IDONTKNOWIT argument that ignores notability requirements that have been met by these articles. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's important to clarify that these are not college soccer players. They are players who were drafted in the first round of the MLS draft - a fully professional soccer league. In the case of Patrick Nyarko, he was a finalist for soccer's version of the Heisman Trophy and has been profiled by media outlets independent of Virginia Tech, including the Washington Post and Roanoke Times. --B (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I agree. However, my point has been that once one becomes a college player and receives significant coverage, if they never do anything else, notability is already satisfied. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I don't understand why these players are subject to different criteria than players on the 2007 College Football All-America Team, for instance. After all, isn't the NFL just as professional as MLS? Greg Oden hasn't played a single minute of NBA basketball yet, does that mean he is not notable? ugen64 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete No re-definition of WP:BIO needed to justify these deletions. It says that there are two criteria for sports people: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, which these people have not, and Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports, which is linked to Amateur sports, which states By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration: this clearly does not include football/soccer. These players have apparently been signed by professional teams: they are likely, therefore, to eventually represent them. When this happens, they will meet the criteria, until then they do not. Being considered for an award, but not winning it, is not of itself grounds for notability. Kevin McE (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It does include soccer. There's a system for amateurs, players play in it, they don't get paid for it, meets the definition just fine to me. Just because they move up doesn't negate that notability; in fact, I would think it makes them more notable. We can't just delete athletes' articles once they finish playing at the college level, that's absurd. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- When Patrick Nyarko was a student at Virginia Tech, he, like every other NCAA athlete in the country, played without renumeration. He was an amateur athlete - just like any NCAA football, NCAA basketball, NCAA soccer, NCAA volleyball, NCAA tennis, etc, athlete. While an amateur athlete, he was profiled by multiple non-trivial media sources independent of himself or his school - see above for the links. He thus met WP:BIO as an amateur athlete. Now, he has gone on to be drafted in the first round of the MLS draft - the highest level of professional soccer in America. There are countless news articles about him. The same is true of all of the other players - this isn't really questionable. --B (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see that you are arguing for a level of paticipation greater than that of the Varsity Match in English Rugby: amateur participation in a professional sport, that happens to attract some media coverage. There is professional soccer in the US, ergo soccer in the US is not at its highest level an amateur sport. These men have not participated in it, perhaps in time they will, and then their articles wll be fully justified. There are countless apprentices at professional clubs in Europe and South America who play in front of paying audiences every week of the season, and who have no other occupation, but they do not reach notability, even if they attract some media attention. I have not seen any compeking reason why their US equivalents should be treated differently. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reading the definition wrong. WP:BIO doesn't say that the amateur level must be the highest level in that sport, it says "the highest level in amateur sports." NCAA Division I meets that definition. Otherwise there would be a whole slew of college athletes in sports that also have professional systems that would be non-notable. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are reading it wrong. It has been well-established by WP:Football that football is not an amateur sport, and that this is not relevant here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't stipulate to that. Soccer is a sport at BOTH the amateur and professional levels. That may contradict with your worldview, but it is reality. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My worldview? Perhaps you should ask some other WP:Football members. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This isn't the same as the European system. These aren't random signees that will languish in youth teams for maybe 5-7 years before possibly breaking through. Being drafted in the first round signifies notability. matt91486 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well when they make their debut, they will deserve their article. UNtil then, your confidence that they will make the grade does not justify breaking WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a completely different system. I realize that some articles that you wrote recently were deleted under this policy, but these players have competed at the highest amateur levels in NCAA competition and were drafted professionally in a major sport league. This competition makes them notable already, and WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. My confidence that they will someday make an appearance has nothing to do with it. matt91486 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One minor correction - NCAA DI athletes are notable PROVIDED that they meet the general criterion of independent coverage. We don't need a series of articles on long snappers of the Sun Belt Conference. --B (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I'm not trying to say that every D1 athlete should get their own article, just in this context, the combination of their college experience and their drafting. matt91486 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying I shouldn't write backup longsnappers, deepsnappers, holders, gunners, and punt blockers of the MEAC, right? ;) --B (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now as fascinating as an analysis of Delaware State's special teams may be, it might not be the most durable article creation, haha. matt91486 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - the American college athletes system is clearly very different to our (England's) amateur systems and as I understand it, garners significant media coverage. I don't think all participants in the draft should automatically make notability guidelines, however those that have received coverage in the media should be considered on merit. Espinoza's page links to one source (though my Spanish isn't good enough); each player should be considered invidually based on this. It seems like it should be easier to find sources for these players than for a lot of League 2 players. Paulbrock (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, these players have made significant contributions to the college game, and will make contributions to the professional game. Additionally, the fact they were selected in the first round of the MLS draft, makes them even more no-tah-bul. м info (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete We delete English players who have not played in a fully professional league. We delete Irish players who have not played in a fully professional league. We delete French players who have not played in a fully professional league. We should also delete American players who have not played in a fully professional league. Football is a professional sport, therefore any arguments about amateur sports are irrelevant; that guideline refers to amateur sports; it's not an invitation to open the floodgates for players who haven't made the grade in professional sports. Robotforaday (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It took about 45 seconds to find an article on an English player with no professional experience, Alex Campana, I'm sure there are hundreds más. м info (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have spent more than 45 seconds: the article clearly states that he has made at least two first-team, competitive appearances for Watford, a fully professional team. However, you are right that there are many others that should not have articles. Members of WP:Football work hard to remove these results of excessive enthusiasm from supporters aware of the juniors at their clubs, and we are simply applying the same principles here. We do not normally encounter so much resistance to the neutral application of a clear policy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate WP footy page is NOT a policy, or even a guideline. Even WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are guidelines, which clearly state that it is possible for a player to be notable without having played in a professional league (Wikipedia:Bio#Additional_criteria). There's resistance to this AfD as there's a reasonable argument that some of these players have already achieved notability ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"). Paulbrock (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep if its confirmed that he's an MLS player, I think that mroe than satisfies the highest professional league part Corpx (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- He hasn't actually played in the MLS though (and assuming he will is violating WP:CRYSTAL). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Most of these players also played for high profile D1 universities ("highest amateur level" in the US, I'd say). We have pages on several D1 football players who never went on to the NFL. Then again not all universities field a men's soccer team, so I dont know where we should draw the line. Changing vote to weak keep Corpx (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    - - Actually, the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the US. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    - If a DI athlete has distinguished himself/herself sufficiently that media outside of the school reports on him/her in such a way that exceeds their reporting of all players on the team, in other words, more than just a game recap, then that's what I interpret "who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them" to mean. So chances are, someone who is a first round draft pick is going to be profiled in the media and have news articles written about them, thus meeting that criterion. Soccer isn't quite the same as football - in the NFL, it is a dead certainty that someone picked in the first round is going to make the team and play for at least that season - they wouldn't have drafted him otherwise. But in MLS, teams are smaller and the draft isn't quite as big of a deal - some teams might only have one or two players still on the team from their 2007 draft. Even so, though, as NCAA athletes, these players all met the criterion, regardless of whether they ever play a minute in MLS. --B (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all - fail usual interpretation of WP:BIO in relation to footballers - not played (yet) in a fully professional league. When (or if) they do, re-create the articles. - fchd (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You probably should go ahead and delete everyone listed at User:B/NCAA data too. (Sarcasm off) WP:BIO has never meant that no college athlete is notable. All of these people meet the general notability criterion. --B (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm really not interested in other NCAA athletes, particularly those in other sports. This AfD concerns the articles listed above only, and consensus in many previous AfDs for footballers is that to satisfy the policies, they must have made an appearance in a fully professional league to cross the bar of notability. - fchd (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    - I see a logical fallacy. You want to restrict the discussion to these articles only, yet open the discussion to past articles, ignoring without detail all other policies and precedents that oppose your rationale. I'm not sure I buy that. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Okay, perhaps I could have said that a little bit clearer. So, the relevant bit of WP:BIO for athletes says (reformatted slightly for easier reading in this context) "Athletes - 1) Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. 2) Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". As football is a professional sport (even in the U.S.A., the country to which these articles relate), clause 2 is not in effect. Clause 1 says they must have competed in a fully professional league, which Espinoza and the others have not. Even If it was deemed that clause 2 was in effect, I'd also find it pretty hard to justify that NCAA competitions are the highest level of amateur football in the US, either. There are leagues below the MLS that, being open-aged, would almost certainly be of a higher level. Different criteria may apply for basketballers and American footballers, I just don't know enough to pretend enough insight into the various levels to participate in discussions on those subjects. But in this case, my !vote remains Delete, and that Delete is getting stronger all the time. - fchd (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        College soccer is an amateur sport. The fact that somewhere some people play professional soccer doesn't change the fact that these guys all played college soccer at its highest level and all meet the general notability criterion.--B (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        Comment. We might be witnessing a major language gap here. I don't know about other dialects of English, but I do know "amateur" and "professional" can coexist in the same environment when it comes to American English. Maybe that's what the deletion proponents are getting hung up on. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        "College soccer" is not a sport: it is the level of a sport (soccer) that is played in US colleges. Sunday league football is not a sport either, it is a level of football played in the UK: the best Sunday league players do not attain notability for that. College soccer is clearly not the highest level of soccer played in the US, Richard suggests that it might not be the highest amateur level either. Reportage may be cultural rather than determined by standards: until fairly recently, The Times and the Daily Telegraph regularly reported on the football and rugby matches of the top public schools, but it would be fallacious to claim that this was the highest level of either game in the country. Kevin McE (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        Actually, that's a very good point - the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the US. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        The NCAA isn't in the same pyramid as the USL, so it's hard to compare them. It's a separate entity. matt91486 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral They can't be kept or deleted in one group, they all need to be looked at on a case by case basis. If they can be shown to have general notability then whether they are notable under WP:FOOTY rules is irrelevant, and they should be kept. Otherwise they should probably fall under the jurisdiction of that project, which clearly says they should be deleted. John Hayes^talk 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. Until they play a professional game they fail WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Patrick Nyarko has been the subject of several news media profiles (Washington Post, Roanoke Times) that I linked above. He passes the general notability criterion - how does he fail WP:BIO? --B (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - many people are quoting WP:BIO as a reason for delete, however please note that the intro to the section detailing playing in professional leagues reads:

"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

(emphasis mine, taken from Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria). I suggest that the subjects are evaluated against the key criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (WP:N). Paulbrock (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Football WikiProject notability criteria. As I understand it, they'll soon be notable without controversy in no time at all when their new teams ask them to cross the whitewash for the first time. If they never play because of an unfortunate accident, they've not achieved enough to be notable by our criteria. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep He's a major draft pick, a US youth international, and will be playing in MLS this year. This seems like a no-brainer to me. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- "will be playing in MLS this year" WP:CRYSTAL? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Once again, he meets notability already beyond his potential to play in the MLS. matt91486 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep A lot of this comes from European unfamiliarity with the US system. At this time, the NCAA is pretty much a giant academy for US soccer. How are these guys less notable than Séan Evans, James Chester, and Sam Hewson of ManU for example (I would argue that they are more notable)? Furthermore, Lambo and Nimo have played in the U-17 WC, and the two of them plus Nyarko and Espinoza already have professional contracts. Regardless of this, being top draft picks in the MLS draft is enough for notability. If all these articles are deleted, even with 100% certainty that they'll be re-started in two months time, wouldn't that mean they are notable to begin with? Wikipedia pedantry at its worst. --Balerion (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those 3 Man Utd reserves seem to also fail WP:BIO: if they do meet the criteria, that claim is not in their article. Thank you for drawing our attention to them: I'll set up an AfD. After all, that is what should happen for all footballers who do not meet the criteria, whatever side of the Atlantic they live. Meanwhile, your concept of 100% certainty is an interesting one: can the unpredictable, or unlikely, never happen? Kevin McE (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:Otherstuffexistsbuthopefullywon'tafterKevinMcEhasstartedanafdsothatwecandeleteit ;) Robotforaday (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The certainty comment was hyperbole and I shouldn't have written it in this forum. As far as everything else, it's important to understand the differences in sports structure between the US and Europe. No US sports teams have academies which develop athletes from a very young age, paying them a living stipend (other than the very recently-developed MLS academies which are in their infancy). Instead, we have drafts, in which players are selected from NCAA programs, or sometimes high schools. These amateur programs serve as a giant "general pool" academy, in effect -- which is far from efficient, but that's another story. However, these drafts have become a big event in the sporting calendar of MLS, NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. I think that being picked in that event supercedes specific footballing guidelines under WP:BIO. Because in truth at least 95% of players in the SuperDraft play professionally (most who don't make MLS teams either go to Europe or play in the 2nd-level USL, also professional). Not football/soccer, but Len Bias is an example of a draftee who is still notable. The Supplemental Draft is definitely a different territory because there's a much higher attrition rate, but I do believe that the Keep vs. Delete debate breaks down pretty much on American vs. European lines based on perception of importance of drafts in the US. --Balerion (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Your observations are reasonable up to a point, except for the fact that players who only play for the academies of teams in the UK should not have an article, as they have not yet played in a fully professional league. So it is not as though we are saying that players who have participated in the European youth setup should have articles, but people who have participated at the US college setup should not; the opposition is generally a consistent one saying that it only makes sense to have articles for people who are competing in a nation's professional leagues. Robotforaday (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      - That wasn't the point I was trying to drive at. I'm saying that appearances or no, being picked in a top-level US Pro sports league is notable.--Balerion (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep While I don't agree college soccer players should have articles, them being drafted is like a extremely promicing transfer from the youth club to the premier league. In american sports, being drafted in the first round in every sport, (with the expection of baseball) is extremely likely to play proffesionally, unless something tragic happens). American soccer is much different than British soccer because of that reasoning. If they don't make the pros, the articles can be AFD again. Secret ^account 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL again. How long do we wait until he hasn't played a game? 25, 30, 35? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

- But I can't help thinking that this is the wrong way around - why can't people wait until they make the pros to create this articles in the first place? You don't see me creating articles about people in my college rowing team. Robotforaday (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - WP:N isn't temporary. If he's notable now, he's notable in six months time even if he doesn't play. Conversely if he's not notable in six months time cos he hasn't played, then he's not notable now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment A degree of disingenuity seems to have been employed by some defenders of these articles in their citing of college (American ) football/basketball as evidence of the scale, profile and importance of college soccer. It should be noted that the college team for which Patrick Nyarko (who is the most strongly defended of these candidates for deletion) played, have a stadium with a capacity of 2,500. This seems to place them on a scale comparable with sides in the Ryman League, or similar. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's depends on the sport, and remember they were drafted, so they no longer in college. Secret ^account 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - But also have yet to play for the teams that they've been drafted for. Robotforaday (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's the same with college football players, we create articles on them once we know they are going to get drafted, or are drafted, being drafted in sports like soccer and american football, means that they will likely make the pros. Secret ^account 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- When did we say they played at stadia with 20,000 seats? I don't think we've been disingenuous at all. matt91486 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want a rule that says "every person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, unless he or she played American college soccer in which case he or she is only notable upon playing a full year in MLS"? Nobody said that college soccer has huge stadia. Tech's stadium is probably on the small side for major conferences (definitely on the small side for the ACC - before we entered the league, we poured everything into the other football and are only now beginning to expand our other facilities). But the point is, college sports in America are more than an afterthought and if a person is distinguished in such a way as to meet the general notability criterion, there's no reason to exclude them because they play soccer. --B (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - No, what I want is to use the same criteria for American footballers as for players of similar standing across the world - that they need to have appeared at the highest level (i.e. played for the international side, not youth sides), or made an appearance in a fully professional league (including MLS or the like) before passing the bar of notability. One appearance will do, it's not necessary to play a full season. This would be the same as a youngster signing a professional contract for Manchester United or Real Madrid - signing up does not pass, stepping over the white line does. - fchd (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is mainly for we don't know or it's soon to tell situation, most of these players would likely play in their first couple of games. Again the way american soccer works is much different from british soccer. Secret ^account 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, the articles can be easily recreated once they've appeared. But, without wishing ill on anyone, if one of those guys breaks a leg badly and never plays a game, and then goes on to enjoy a satisfying but thoroughly unnotable life working in a bookshop, raising three children and breeding cats, should their article have been kept? The question is, are they notable now, hence the WP:FOOTY criteria of not notable until they've actually started a game... which is why all those Man United kids mentioned above, all of whom will (barring injury or other disaster) have professional careers somewhere, are not yet notable and their articles will be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. These AfD's are "Wikipedia pedantry" as stated above, as well as ignorance of how the American system of soccer works. These are notable players and their articles meet notability requirements. --Friejose (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- God, I love people telling me that I'm being ignorant. Robotforaday (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if I offended, but I'm calling it as I see it. I also didn't single anyone out, you brought that on yourself for whatever reason. --Friejose (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per the WP:FOOTBALL notability criterion of requiring to play a professional game. If all of these college players are so great they'll meet this simple criterion in no time, surely? And if they're not so great, and let's face it, we have plenty of promising Academy players who get to reserve level and fade away, they won't have an article. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These players have signed or will sign with an mls side, Eric Brunner and other of these players have already signed mls contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have to say that I'm finding this a fascinating debate, particularly for a stub. I've only been a Wikipedian for a few months, and this is my first time really taking a look at an AfD discussion. It seems to me that people are really getting sidetracked by the fact that multiple players have been rolled into the same AfD. I also have a couple of questions that I think are worth considering.

1) Is it logical that a project of Wikipedia, such as WP:FOOTBALL, can set more stringent guidelines than those established by WP:BIO? There are a number of comments here that suggest to me that WP:FOOTBALL has set a bar for notability that trumps any other claim on notability that would apply elsewhere on the site, and that seems off somehow. Please understand that this is no way an attack on WP:FOOTBALL, or on the folks doing hard work on its behalf.

2) I really wish we could get a linguist to parse the WP:BIO section on athletics. I feel like part of the flaw is the way that this language is written - it seems to lead many to a conclusion that describing sports as professional or amateur is an either/or proposition, and that's just not a logical conclusion. A sports league can be either professional or amateur. A player in a sport can be competing as either a professional or an amateur. The sport itself - most sports, in fact - can be competed at either the professional or amateur level, so classifying it as one or the other doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd point to selections from two articles that are germane to this discussion in particular. First, Association football, which reads in part "Today, football is played at a professional level all over the world ... A very large number of people also play football at an amateur level.". Second, United States Soccer Federation, which is currently the featured federation on the Association Football Portal, and which reads in part "It is a member of FIFA, and is responsible for governing amateur and professional soccer ...". Both of those articles explicitly envision that football can be played as either a professional or as an amateur - how, then, is it possible to classify the entire sport of football as "professional", and then only apply the first of the WP:BIO guidelines as the notability test for everyone who plays it.

I guess all this is to say that I feel that the WP:BIO guidelines of Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. and Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). should not be read as mutually exclusive. It would seem to me that if Roger Espinoza has competed at the highest level in amateur sports - and I have to believe that NCAA Division 1 soccer ought to at least sit alongside the USDL in this regard - and also satisfies the criteria of having secondary sources published about him, then he's notable and this is a Keep. If there are no secondary sources, then it's a Delete verging on Weak keep. Of course, your mileage may vary. Mlaffs (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not suggesting that professional/ amateur is an either/ or distinction. What I'm saying is that wikipedia should have coverage of the significant players in any sport. In order to do so, it has guidelines to include those players who play in fully professional leagues. In football, professional football and amateur football are not two things played at the same level; there are professional setups and then at a lower level there is an amateur setup: these are not parallel systems by any stretch of the imagination. By attempting to cover all players who play at a professional level, that is already a massive commitment to writing about a lot of football. When we the open doors to amateur players, i.e. people who are not yet playing at the professional level, we risk watering down notability to a very high degree. Robotforaday (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

- Robotforaday, I moved my last paragraph back up so that the argument didn't get separated. Just so I'm clear, I do understand your point, and your concern regarding "watering down notability". I'm not suggesting that everyone who played at the highest amateur level is notable. The parenthetical reference in that WP:BIO criteria - "who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them" - is the important part. That's the problem with having all of these names rolled into this debate. I don't claim to know enough about football to say for sure, but while Roger Espinoza may not end up making the cut, I find it hard to believe that Patrick Nyarko wouldn't be considered notable. At the very least, having ~~won~~ been nominated for the top award for his sport would factor in, as would the secondary sources already cited by others. The point I'm trying to make is that setting the bar solely at having to have played a professional game at the expense of any other item that might qualify as notable is overly strict. It would analagous to the folks running the project on American football using the fact that Reggie Bush had never played a game in the NFL to determine that he wasn't notable before he turned pro, when he'd won the Heismann Award and was widely-known. It would be like the folks running the project on hockey determining that Sydney Crosby wasn't notable before he'd played an NHL game, despite the fact that he was the most famous prospect to come along since Wayne Gretzky. Mlaffs (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) (apologies for the mistake)
  - Please clarify how and when he won the top award for his sport. If he was in a winning team at the World Cup or named FIFA Player of the year it passed me by. The only claim that his article makes that this could possibly refer to is his being short-listed for, but unsuccessful in, a player of the year award for the amateur, age-restricted division that he played in. The regard in which he holds that division is attested by the report that he left it a year earlier than would have been scheduled. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    - He didn't win the award, he was one of three finalists for it, but that isn't the point. Should we delete Tim Tebow? After all, he's only a college football player in a professional sport (American football). This whole argument doesn't make a bit of sense. --B (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, if/when any of these players make their debut for a fully professional club then they will meet the current notability criteria for footballers, any claim that they are sure to do so because the American system is different to the Euro system relies on WP:CRYSTAL. Allowing these articles to be kept due to the vociferous defence from U.S soccer enthusiasts would create a clear double standard between US youth football and youth footballers in the rest of the world. King of the North East 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

- WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Patrick Nyarko is the subject of at least three biographical news articles [13][14][15], plus a litany of other articles about the team or about his being drafted. This article about Tech's loss in the final four focuses almost entirely on Nyarko. User:B/NCAA data has a long list of college football and college basketball players that have articles. I realize that you may not want to open the door to having articles about every player for every random soccer club in the world, but the general notability criterion doesn't go away just because one WikiProject doesn't like it. The articles that we are talking about all deal with the most prolific college soccer players and are far more selective than the articles on college athletes in the big two (football + basketball). --B (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as has been said, NCAA Division I is the top amateur division in the United States, along with the PDL. Also, being drafted makes a person inherently notable, not because of their potential to play professionally, but merely for having the talent and media attention to be selected. Che84 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

- Comment I'm sick of this "making them drafted makes them inherently notable" argument. What rubbish! And NCAA Div 1 is amateur! Just like the Football Conference is amateur! If these guys are good enough to play professional, they will and then they'll be notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. They are at the top of an AMATEUR field, and not one linked up to professional ones. The NCAA is a stand-alone entity. matt91486 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's simply not notable. As I keep saying, if they're so great, these guys will play professionally in no time. And then they'll meet the requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a debate on their skill. They've done enough to satisfy WP:BIO before being professionals. matt91486 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Judgement of skill is subjective and POV. Criteria for fulfilling a policy must be verifiable, like whether he has played in a professional league. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. We agree on that. I'm just saying that WP:BIO explicitly also has other avenues for notability for amateur athletes, and these players meet those. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What?!?! It very clearly DOESN'T have explicit avenues for notability for amateur athletes! It talks about athletes in amateur sports (which football is not). The reason there's a massive debate here is for the very reason that it's not explicit whether or not that covers the individuals being dealt with here. Don't try and twist it. People above have claimed that the statement is ambiguous. Fine, maybe it is. But the one thing it isn't is explicit! Robotforaday (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it explicitly states this: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." It clearly has explicit avenues for amateur athletes. Some people believe it is ambiguous whether or not they should count as amateur athletes, but there ARE explicit avenues for amateur athletes. I don't appreciate your insinuations that I'm being improper. matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have the proper sources, yes, but if they don't, then no Secret ^account 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin Go lie down in a darkened room after you've closed this one. You deserve a break. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Question to those calling for the deletion of Patrick Nyarko - should we delete Tim Tebow? Why or why not? He too is an amateur playing in a professional sport. --B (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my final thought on this. First, I'll reiterate that it's simply not possible to define an entire sport as either professional or amateur - practically every branch of athletics can be competed at both the professional and the amateur level. As such, there will be people in football, American football, baseball, basketball, hockey, figure skating, golf, tennis, lacrosse, darts - you name it - that meet the first test of the Athletics standards in WP:BIO and there will be people in the same sport that meet the second test of those standards.

But, just for a moment, let's accept the premise that football is a "professional" sport. However, again per the opening paragraphs of WP:BIO:

"Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Additional criteria

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

"Additional criteria". To me, that means that the standard of having played a game in a professional league is a perfectly valid starting point for determining notability - that is, it's an "inclusionary" standard. However, it's only the starting point - it can't be the end of the discussion, an "exclusionary" standard.

Please, keep in mind that nobody - or, at least I hope nobody - is trying to argue that the mere fact of having played in the NCAA division 1, or the U.S. Premier Development League, or the Football Conference, makes you notable. It's having played at that level, plus having valid secondary sources, that's what matters. So, if Roger Espinoza, Patrick Nyarko, or anyone else listed in this AfD has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, independent of them, and not trivial - per the basic criteria, which must necessarily apply to any and all biographical articles within this site, even ones in which the Football Project or any other Wikipedia Project has a significant interest - then they're notable. Mlaffs (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, pick one of the more 'notable' players, Patrick Nyarko.

[16] - Article in Richmond Times

[17] - Article in Washington Post.

This CLEARLY demonstrates WP:N and WP:BIO's criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" doesn't it? This isn't about amateur versus professional, America versus Europe. Is it possible for (some of) these players to be notable without making a professional appearance? Yes. Are all of the players listed for deletion notable? Maybe, maybe not. Espinoza has one source listed,Nyarko has several, two of which I've highlighted here. Am I missing something here about why the appearance criteria should overrule this? Paulbrock (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it will open the door to pretty much everyone who's kicked a ball. It's useful to have a cut-off point. Robotforaday (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes,a cut-off point is needed - significant coverage in secondary sources IS the cut-off point. I play football, but no-one is going to publish an article about me (playing football) in a reliable secondary source, hence no WP article.... Paulbrock (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been nowhere near amateur football level, yet I know I've been published in at least two reliable sources, yet I know I'm not notable enough for my own entry. Peanut4 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Robotforaday (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Significant coverage in something like the Washington Post? Maybe my 15 minutes of fame haven't come round yet! :-)...Paulbrock (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not all that far fetched, you know. The Liverpool Echo (circulation around 100,000) has decent coverage of sports being played at an amateur level. In fact, when you take the Liverpool Echo even more local newspapers published around Merseyside by Trinity Mirror (each with a circulation in the 10,000s), you could even make a case using this "two independent sources" idea for the creation of articles about children playing for their school team. While even I would admit that there is a gulf difference between Roger Espinoza et al. and some kid who's played for Sefton U-11s, all I'm saying is that it's so easy to gather "multiple sources" in this media saturated age that we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity. It's not an option to simply say "I can find something written in a newspaper about them, so they must be notable". Robotforaday (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. And now the BBC have pages for junior football, little Johnny could find himself a source from one of the most reputable and widely read out there. It doesn't mean he's notable though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet WP:BIO allows for amateur athletes. This can obviously be interpreted as a worst-case scenario as you state, but this isn't about U-11 players. It's about NCAA players. Let's not lose sight of that. People argue for and against precedent in every AfD, so let's not worry about U11 players and stick to whether or not these players do. matt91486 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Amateur athletes in amateur sports. We're talking about a pro sport here, a very big pro sport. Peanut4 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NCAA? Amateurs in a worldwide (the biggest in the world) professional sport. Yawn. When these guys make it to the pro leagues then we'll be interested. Until then, non notable. Really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but I'm not sure we've ever come to the consensus that amateur is only valid in sports without professionals. What sports DON'T have professionals? Even figure skating has a professional tour. matt91486 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An intriguing argument by Robotforaday. WP:N talks of academic papers as suitable sources, but I understand it covers reputable newspapers. Washington Post has 700,000 circulation, more than the Times, and the articles cited are about Nyarko, not merely mentioning him in passing as part of a match report. If there were several interviews of a 11 yr old published in 'big' papers, I'd want to know why he was getting the coverage and what (if any) notability he had.

Robot asserts we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity, though WP:BIO explicitly states that

"Failure to meet these (additional) criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included"

So I'm a bit confused! There is obviously precedent for following the WP:FOOTY guideline, and I can see why adding an article for every interview in every local paper is not sensible, so what is the correct application of this part of WP:BIO? Paulbrock (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

←For those who are interested, there's a parallel discussion going on at WP:FOOTBALL right now about notability of draftees. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Number 57, never played professionally. BanRay 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Should we delete Tim Tebow, too? --B (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - This is the third time you have asked that in this debate. If I were you, I would attribute the lack of a response to the idea that it has little to do with the current debate. There is not an international situation to compare with in American football, there is large scale coverage of college AF. College soccer is played in small stadia, to small crowds and has minimal coverage beyond what is local, it is not the only way into the professional game, and as I suggested above, it is a red herring to bring this in. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - This argument has been filled with logical fallacies on both sides throughout, so we can't just single any one person out for it. College basketball isn't the only way into the NBA, though, but it still is treated with a degree of notability for college athletes, so I'm not sure that being able to get into professional soccer in a different manner should matter. matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete by kwami. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Letter names in different languages or alphabets

Prod removed with nonsense reason in edit summary. Prod reason was, "Merely copied from English alphabet and Greek alphabet, except for the Turkish, which has now been added to Turkish alphabet. Author never expanded to the point of being interesting. Having this information in more than one article, besides being redundant, makes maintenance more difficult. The English names, for example, have a history of being changed (e.g. "see" for "cee") by people who don't understand the concept; indeed, "a" was misspelled "ay" on this article, an error which was corrected on the main article a long time ago" Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted after 6 days. kwami (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but I recommend cleanup; the article reads like a hagiography. Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay A. DeLoach

Non-notable. Only sentence indicating any notability outside your typical Military officer is "played an instrumental role in implementing a visionary "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component", with no source verifying that assertion, and is by itself is pretty weak. The subject has not received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The article amounts to the typical biography that every flag officer has introducing him/her, and I suspect it is a copy and paste of just that. The "Search for the USS Alligator" section only mentions that he "helped" in the search, not mentioning any role he might have had in the operation. — Ocatecir ^T 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - article well written and sourced and meets all requirements established by Wikipedia policy. Subject is featured in the "Who's Who in Executives and Professionals for 2002, 2003, and 2004." in accordance to the official bio of the U.S. Navy which makes him notable, see [18]. There is no "paste" as claimed. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard to DeLoach's role in the implementation of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component", see:[19] and it's importance in todays modern submarine warfare: [20]. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I dont think it says in either of those links that he was the implementor, really Corpx (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, and I quote from Vice Admiral Donald: RDML "DeLoach played a critical role in implementing a visionary Memorandum of Understanding between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component. This MOU pioneered many key initiatives that have since been adopted Navy-wide. For example, Active Component Commanders have been assigned as Regular Reporting Senior Officers for their associated Reserve unit Commanding Officers for the past six years in the Submarine Force." soruce: [21] Tony the Marine (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a direct quote for the admiral, and I have no idea how this "memorandum of understanding is" (or what role exactly he played in implementing it), but I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the article, as there's plenty of coverage on him as well. Maybe something with knowledge of the navy can explain the importance Weak Keep Corpx (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military Leith p 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - According to google search, DeLoach is notable. I can't understand why anyone would nominate an article of this calibur when there are so many "junk" articles in Wikipedia to choose from. A typical example of what I am talking about is: Lola Corwin. Now, that I could understand if it were nominated for deletion. Antonio Martin (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and took care of that one for us. --BizMgr (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I was, with very little effort, able to find more than enough references to DeLoach to satisfy WP:Notability. I will leave to the academians to complete the research, but there is plenty of available 3rd party coverage. --BizMgr (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This academician was unable to find any. There's one report in the Virginian-Pilot, but that's nowhere near enough. USN releases do not count as independent sources. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Notable on two counts. USN flag officer and, at time of retirement, one of only four Hispanic admirals in the U.S. Navy. — ERcheck (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all flag officers notable? Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since others seem to have difficulty finding sources, here are some. Sourced. These are just the first three that popped up searching for DeLoach and Navy Reserve reorganization, which he had a key role in. The fact that he was the key architect for such a massive restructure, which earned multiple press notabilities, alone should satisfy WP:Notability. As previously stated, I believe the above arguments are more than sufficiently strong for a keep. The fact that he is cited as an authoritative reference in dozens of articles and journals should also carry weight. --BizMgr (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Said of DeLoach's integration of naval reserve sub forces into the active duty force, as requisite for the new "War on Terror" military model: “Under Jay’s direction, the Submarine Force’s Reserve Component has continued to lead this transformation to the new model of warfighting wholeness,” VADM Donald added.^[1]
Noting DeLoach's "significant" role in the Naval Reserve reorganization: "Mission Effectiveness"^[2].
Again identifying DeLoach as instrumental in the reorganization decision-making. "Surface Aid for the U.S. War on Terror"^[3]

^ Foutch, Michael. "Determination to live up to family heritage leads to flag rank for Reserve Force leader". Daily Online News, p8. September 13, 2004
^ Caesar, Julius. "Mission Effectiveness". Mid-Atlantic Currents, page 9. Spring 2005, Vol 36, Iss 2
^ Wiltrout, Kate. "Surface Aid for the U.S. War on Terror". The Virginia-Pilot, August 24, 2006.

As I said, I saw the Virginian-Pilot article. Of the others, one is on a personal website that's not allowable, and the other is a .mil article, thus not an independent source and not relevant for notability. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is a Navy-pub'd newspaper not independent or referential? He didn't write the article, nor did he have any sway over it. The Navy Journalism Corps reports independently like any other journalist. This is not a DoD press release, this is a published article in a print paper. Furthermore, DoD and .mil sources are referenced tens of thousands of times in articles about U.S. equipment and munitions (including USS Alligator, cited in this article). Is this incorrect? --BizMgr (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, True, as you said, the "Virginian-Pilot article" source reaffirms DeLoach's important role and notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I said an article in a local paper is not enough. Relata refero (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)e

Perhaps I should have wikified The Virginian-Pilot. It is the largest daily in Virginia, even larger in distro than the Washington Post. It is a multi-time Pulitzer winning paper complete with it's own Wikipedia article. It is also a Top-100 distro paper in the U.S. It is not a local paper. --BizMgr (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep The notability of the subject is more or less implied. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:31 2008 February 4 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

David Marks (psychologist)

Tagged as unreferenced since May 2007, cites a few sources but not independent ones. Sole biographical source is his own web page. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I'm not so sure we should really be too concerned about personal details coming from his own website, since as far as is discernable, he didn't write the article. Perhaps some other editors could have a look at the references (they're all books), and decide if the refs section is up to scratch. I'm not sure which way to go on this one. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
An admittedly biased moderate keep. Lawdy. OK, I'll admit to bias here - I was taught by Marks way back during his time in NZ, and Richard Kammann as well (I was part of a follow-up study for their parapsychology work). As such, I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge the info here checks out, and the "Psychology of the psychic" book is a fairly important one in its field. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Full professor at UK university, founder of journal of which he is Editor.[22] Published several mainstream texts eg see [23], as well as The Psychology of the Psychic for which Amazon.com claims 40 citations.[24] Medline finds around 27 papers for "DF Marks" that appear to relate to this author, including several in high-profile journals such as Nature and BMJ, and the majority in well-respected specialist journals. Google Scholar finds one paper with 193 citations, a further two publications with over 50 citations, and several others >20. Meets my understanding of WP:PROF, and might also score as a popular author. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Since this article was tagged as unreferenced back in May 2007, independent sources have been added to verify the biographical information concerning the subject (e.g. Who's Who, 2007). The textbook by Marks et al. (2005) on Health Psychology is listed by the publisher Sage as a "bestseller". The VVIQ, designed by Marks, has been cited in more than 300 publications, as listed by the ISI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethought2008 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

fair to mention that Who's who is not accepted for notability, but is , like CVs a n acceptable source for noncontroversial bio details. Fact tags were added to this article for many totally routine items in the CV--is there some reason to think the material there wrong? Academic CVs are semi-official and almost always reliable as people can get fired for faking them. Yes, in principle they can be challenged here, but before going to the work of verifying them as if we were an investigatory body, there should be some reason for doubt. (Last spring there was one that did look inconsistent, and the pubs could not be found, so there was reason for doubt, & I did investigate the sources and could not find the PhD after multiple cross-checking & the article was deleted. took half a day. No reason to do this sort of thing routinely.) DGG (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - Nothing describes anything original he has contributed to the field besides his Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) of unknown usefulness (the pdf file used as supporting evidence for the questionaire does not say they used the VVIQ in the experimental design) and some books on very well known topics - one seems like somewhat of a reprint of a 1933 book. Someone has gone to the trouble to write wikipedia articles on these, e.g. The Psychology of the Psychic and on the New Zealand Skeptics which he co-founded (and its Bent Spoon Award which it gives out). A rather ordinary professional can achieve a high profile if someone takes the time to write up everything that person has done as an independent wikipedia article. Promoting cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation (his The QUIT FOR LIFE Programme) is not exactly a novel idea. The Marks articles that exist seem overblown for what he has actually contributed. I predict soon there will be more articles on his individual books, programs, and co-foundings. Familiar scenario. Mattisse 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- That seems more of a reason for getting rid of the less worthy of the other articles than the biography itself. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history

Delete pure OR and subjective POV, what makes these incidents "infamous"? in whose opinion? what is the objective criteria for inclusion or not? Or is this just the funniest (or most disquieting) moments in the opinion of someone (or a prudish other). Enquiring minds want to know... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Not original research - just show-biz gossip. Seems notable though and so worth retaining as art of coverage of SNL. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Highly POV in my opinion; as Carlos asked, what makes these incidents "infamous"? Rsazevedo ^msg 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Original research at worst, synthesis at best. Either way, the article's only intent is to promote the subjective viewpoint of its author. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete clearly original research. Most of the few references are transcripts, which don't establish that the material is 'infamous'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom that deciding what's "infamous" is OR Corpx (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge with the main article. As it stands it's a POV fork (owing to the labelling of "infamous" which is POV). This is not original research; original research is just that - NEW information. What this is is reporting information from a primary source, namely SNL, so it's not OR in any way. 23skidoo (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Without the "Infamous" modifier in the title, it becomes "moments in Saturday Night Live history" which, again, would be differentiated by one or more editors' take on what the most notable or interesting moments were. It is therefore original research (or synthesis) and, for the most part, unsalvageably unencyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeannette Jayhawks Football

This article is not notable. It seems to have been written because this High School team won the WPIAL. It also stinks of weasel words. PG Pirate 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete This football program doesn't seem to be a powerhouse, and there isn't anything in this article that couldn't be merged into an article on the high school. However, there is no such article, so the article should be deleted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Any mention in the page about the high school should be sufficient Corpx (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigger

This is a dictionary definition. Fbdave (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no encyclopedical relevance whatsoever. Rsazevedo ^msg 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, neologism so insignificant it's not even on Urban Dictionary. --Stormie (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this is a WP:SNOW candidate for obvious reasons that I don't even feel it's necessary to explain - any Wikipedian at AfD should know the policies that this one fails. Should have been a PROD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy redirected (by another user) to Project Chanology. Since these articles largely overlap, sourced information about the group already exists in the other article, and we just went through a massive AfD debate, I don't think going through that again is fruitful. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous (Scientology)

Article purports to document the exploits of a valiant collective of hackers who wage DDOS attacks against Scientology websites. A skeptical review of the article's content and given references reveals speculation based on unverifiable sources and anti-Scientology soapboxing. In reality what we have here is a sampling of bored kids from various 4chan-like boards seeking attention for petty campaigns and misrepresenting news reports as evidence of their "full scale war over the interwebs". These claims are not notable in the real world. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will succeed to your claims of having some information that is based on speculation and shall remove it.

I did not mean to, and do not attempt to, create anti-Scientology soapboxing. I am trying to create a neutral view of this group so others of whom are curious may see the facts and make their own, intelligent, decision. Seeing as I myself turned to Wikipedia for answers on "Who are these people" in a fair, informative manner. I was shocked and surprised to find nothing! Hence why I am attempting to create this page. I am no more than a beginner at Wikipedia and I do not seek to become an author of Wikipedia pages. With that in mind, please forgive my objective point of view as I do not believe I even noticed it. Kenji000 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect for now to Project Chanology, which the author obviously didn't find when searching. There's precious little that can be said about "Anonymous" that isn't already in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I was also oblivious. Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology was closed yesterday, this nomination is rendered moot. Thanks for the clue, Dhartung. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that it's rendered moot when it's discussing "Anonymous"...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Project Chanology, any relevant information not already there that's here can be merged. Both articles cover the same topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I feel that this AfD is too soon regarding Anonymous' future actions, largely stemming that in Anonymous' 2nd YouTube Video "Call to Action" foretold of a major event occurring on February 10th, which has yet to occur. I suggest we reconvene in 6-12 months time to reconsider the notability of the article. Cheers. Zidel333 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should re-convine on 6-12 to create a page in regards to the entity group known as "Anonymous", until then. I will not add or remove anything from the page that already exists, or if so wished remove it until 6-12 and start over then. Kenji000 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Soteira

~~Delete~~ non-notable character with almost no history and quick death. Merge any mention of her into Morlocks (comics) Wryspy (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect per BOZ below. Wryspy (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Morlocks (comics)#Africa/Gene Nation. There's little or nothing to merge, so just redirect and call it a day. BOZ (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect as above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Anything else left to do here, or does the nominator officially have to withdraw before we can go ahead and redirect? BOZ (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilampirai manimaran

orphaned since Oct 2006, no references, is this person notable? Rtphokie (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. Fails WP:V, sources found look as though they might be trivial, not sure the claims here are enough to establish Wikipedia-level notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per HSR. A Google search gave 550 perfunctory hits. She's written a couple of books, but that's not enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphacell

Seemingly non-notable mobile phone manufacturer, article reads very much like advertising. Couldn't find any sources to give the subject notability. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already stated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

513th Air Control Group

Delete a non-notable group in the air force reserves, unsourced to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Google search gets over 1000 hits (though most only a passing mention). However, Globalsecurity.org has managed to get much more than a stub on this group.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Independent military units of this size (about 450 personnel) are generally regarded as being notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep but expand--Nobunaga24 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to 552d Air Control Wing until somebody comes by to expand it into a proper entry. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:17 2008 February 3 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revelation (comics)

~~Delete~~ article about character that barely appeared anywhere, introduced in issue #1 and died in #4. There's barely any information. Any worthwhile content should be merged intoMorlocks (comics) since the character was a Morlock. Wryspy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect per BOZ below. Wryspy (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Morlocks (comics)#Africa/Gene Nation. There's little or nothing to merge, so just redirect and call it a day. BOZ (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Anything else left to do here, or does the nominator officially have to withdraw before we can go ahead and redirect? BOZ (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mega City (The Matrix)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an repetition of filming facts from the Matrix trilogy, which should be dealt with in the development section of the respective film articles production section. The rest is unsourced speculation and OR, and thus this article should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (as creator). I admit I did start this article back in the days when Wikipedia was a little more relaxed in its inclusion standards and I was young and naive, and you're right, it was a bit ORish, however I've added several real world sources and I'm sure I can find plenty more. I'll also cut out the unreferenced trivia and so on. I believe it is notable as a multiple media fictional location and as a philosophical construct, as per Zion (The Matrix). --Canley (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. You seem to have forgotten to put an AfD tag on the page.

Keep. Canley has now added some relevant references. Axl (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and expanded by merging the Club Hel article into this one. Major fictional location depicted in block buster film franchise and video games. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Brethren of Datu Abdillah

No reliable sources are presented that can verify either that this is a real society or even a notable hoax. Disputed prod. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, some schoolboy playing around. Every "fact" is referenced to his own Geocities page. I'm sure his "Do Not Delete" vote will be worth a laugh. WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, etc. cab (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. --JD554 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Chetblong^{T C} 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Elite Hockey League

nn hockey league with very few direct google hits, only one reliable source found, which isn't the multiple coverage needed in WP:N, prod removed Delete Secret ^account 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Just because a league folded does not mean it was not notable. The equivalent to this league on wikipedia would be any of a number of development leagues for baseball. One would assume that there would be more than enough paper references in the various local news papers that covered this league. I have found numerous mentions on google in just my short look. None directly referencing the league, but that is not surprising how fast it went defunct. -Djsasso (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Djsasso. DMighton (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep the article as it was a semi-professional league, but I do not think the Dartmouth Destroyers page is necessary. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep the article should be rewritten, however. The Dartmouth Destroyers page should be kept, it is a team within league.--Royalmate1 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, author blanked and requests deletion -- pb30<talk> 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plastic Hall of Fame

Non-notable organization. No independent sources given. Google searches return nothing ("plastic hall of fame" babar, "plastic hall of fame" council, "plastic hall of fame" Lahore). Web page is ©2008, "under construction", boasts as "The Most Prestigious Award in Plastic And Petrochemical Industry" - patently untrue. All "hall of famers" and the entire "council" are apparently Pakistanis. A sham. GregorB (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

comment The company is real - and based in N America and the sub continent of South East Asia. Perhaps the award is real too, albeit very NN. Should Munir Ahmad Babar be added to this AfD? Springnuts (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, he may still be notable for his connection to Mapco. GregorB (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - He may be a speedy candidate if this AfD leads to deletion, but happy to wait and see. Springnuts (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Not necessarily a hoax, but massive COI and NN problems. Unsalvageable. Springnuts (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Delete The Hall is real - I myself was invited to the Gala. Yes it is true all the people in the hall are pakistani and real. and they have had only one gala so far in 2007. Over there they intruduced all 4 members into the hall 2 of them were decesed and the 4th one later became the new presedent of the hall. There were no western community present there. there were people from China, Taiwan, Hongkong, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the UAE I remember this because they intruduced all people one by one. The Hall is not so much of a memrobelia as it is a chance for the Plastic community to get together. The Gala was held in Lahore. And before the new site all of this info use to be on another blog type site. On there new site theay are saying that they will have a magazine and a plastic B2B Directory as well. And as far as Mr. Babar Goes he is a Canadian National of Pakistani Decsent. And Bilal is a British Resedent of Pakistani Descent. And i know for certain that the gala that took place was actually of no cost to the Hall of Fame and there was no cost of entry. I belive the tab was covered by the Hotel for bringing business. I hope this helps. ~~ Sam Daddi~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.127.165 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the rationale for deletion once more. I never said the Hall was not real (i.e. does not exist), I said that it was a sham (="something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation"). The opposite must be proven, using reliable, third-party sources. GregorB (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The vanity on this article is obvious. The COI on Safir Ahmad Babar, Munir Ahmad Babar, and Mapco are also just as blatant. The references are few and far between; the notability (bio and corp) has not been established for any of the above. I can propose the aditional three articles for deletion if anybody agrees they follow the same thread. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on this. Yes please, but I would say only the first should be added here (if indeed that is allowed). The other two should probably be nominated separately, perhaps waiting until this AfD is complete, as the company may be a notable company, though the current article is unsourced puffery. Springnuts (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I'll nominate them separately after this one is closed (no need to rush things). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I guess everyone is entitled to there opinion. after thouroghly reading the text on each of the pages and then verfying the resources i feel that the information is valid and they do belong in the encyclopedia. What i do not ageree with are the wording the writer has chosen to write it in. Again DO NOT DELETE - This is encyclopedic. ~~Sheridan College Student XXXXXXXXXX~~
Comment See Special:Contributions/142.55.209.54. User !voted three times. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I am sure this thing has significance as does all other halls of Fame. Mapco has significancs as does all other major companies such as Exxon Mobil Sabic SAPAL Saddle Creek Corporation Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft Qapco. Munir Babar Has segnificance because of his ties to both the Hall of Fame and the Company. Safir Babar has significant because he founded it. ~~Another Sheridan College Student Who Knows Safir Babar XXXXXXXXXX~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.209.54 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment See Special:Contributions/142.55.209.54. User !voted three times. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Question How long does it usually take to know weather the article is okay or not. I have to use this for my marketing management report. I know here is a thing called Plastic Hall of Fame And i Know There is A Guy called Safir Ahmad Babar he was a sheridan college student. I am unable to use this for my report as long as there is a red tag placed on it. teachers rules. so please again i wantd to know when will it be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.209.54 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It usually takes about a week. FYI, You can only !vote once. You appear to have !voted three times. I'll mark your votes as such. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry didnt know if you want i can put it all in one. The reson for doing it three times is because i am use to that i am kind of a chat-aholic on MSN messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.209.54 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
SAFIR A BABAR - SHOULD I DELETE THIS ARTICLE ???? Hi. I Am Safir Babar And i created this article. I founded his organiziation alongside my father Mr. Munir A Babar. Most of you who know the PHOF or Mapco or myself know Mr. Munir Babar. Everything there is true. The reason i wrote the article is because of a friends comments that an organizaton like this belongs on Wikipedia. I am know seriously rethinking this. Maybe it does not belong on the wikipedia because it just started a 3-4 years ago. I Have worked day and night to make this organization a sucess. And if i only get bad publicity from Wikipedia it is not good. If you think i should delete the article please let me know. But the thing is if i delete it today someone eles will write about it tommorrow. so who better person to write it then ho created it. The reason for the topic not found on sevral oher sites is because there was just a wordpress site before, for the subject which closed back in september and know we have moved to a new official website. The website is still under construction and will be completed by the end of feburary. Again I ask do you want me to delete the page if so i will do so. Along with the talk page i will leave this comment on the AfD page. ~~Safir A Babar~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safirbabar (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you for posting here. I believe there are a few minor misconceptions you have about Wikipedia. I'll post just a few notes describing these misunderstandings: "Everything there is true." Nobody here is denying that the things on this article are true. However, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (from the verifiability policy) In other words, things need to be sourced even though they're true. "if i delete it today someone eles will write about it tommorrow" That's exactly what we're hoping. If the organization is notable enough, editors without a vested interest in the company will try to write an unbiased article with sources and whatnot. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Unsalvageably unencyclopedic and entirely promotional article written about a nonnotable organization. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I did not find that the nominator gave a good rational for the article deletion in this nomination, nor I find the other deletion rationals convincing, and I would suggest that when nominating an article for AfD in the future, get right to the point, and cite relevant policies to support your rational. For example, if you think this article is original research, explain to us, how is it original research, and what makes you think that way. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore gay films

Non-notable subject. No evidence is supplied to suggest that Singapore is in any way notable for it's output of LGBT cinema, which isn't surprising as the article itself states that "there is to date not a single feature-length film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre".

The bulk of the article consists of plot summaries to a handfull of loosely connected films, most of them from other countries with only a peripheral Singaporean involvement, and some only having an LGBT sub plot rather than a central theme. The "references" used are mostly just links to IMDb, and the article has seen hardly any development since a prior AfD two years ago. At best this subject deserves only a passing mention in the Cinema of Singapore article, though perhaps the plot summaries can be salvaged and re-used in the articles of the films themselves. PC78 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this could have potential if renamed to something like "Portrayal of alternate lifestyles in Singapore media" or something, but that'll take some work. Corpx (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the individual films are notable - per WP:LIST and cleanup the cites to footnotes. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The notability of the individual films is not the issue here; it is the notability of "gay cinema" in general within the Singaporean film industry that is in question. I'm not sure what you think will be achieved by "cleaning up the cites", either. A bunch of IMDb profiles have no real value as references whichever way you look at it. And exactly which part of WP:LIST are you citing? Lists are still subject to notability criteria, and listing any films that are a) loosely connected to Singapore, and b) have some vague LGBT-related element to them, is completely indiscriminate. PC78 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and move to History of LGBT people in Singapore film; the article needs to be improved through expanding to historical representations of LGBT people in non-LGBT films as well as encompassing LGBT Singapore filmaker's work. Benjiboi 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. 1st Afd was here. Benjiboi 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. (Regarding the nom) This is no longer true. The past 2 years have seen an explosion of gay short films, film festivals and one full-length one called "Solos". The article will be updated in due course. Therefore, retain.Groyn88 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete. The references are links to Imdb, lazily cited (without proper citations), and without any evidence that this isn't just original research. The article clearly grasps for straws to establish notability with the sub-sections "films with LGBT sub-plots" and "films with cross-dressing actors." The main section only mentions a few films. Is that supposed to be an "explosion"? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least I've gone and properly cited them. -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Historic reference to gay life and a genre of film in a place known for not being friendly for such. Further, articles needing cleaned up are supposed to be cleaned up, not deleted. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep : as per the comments above. Europe22 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DOD Pedals Pot Codes – Dates

Unclear as to how this is truly of encyclopedic value. Subject is when certain components of a discontinued line of guitar pedals were manufactured. DarkAudit (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Added missing {{afd}} template to page. Salahx (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Completely unsourced, possibly WP:OR. Either way, seems to be indiscriminate info, as per nom. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable specialist information. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mont Roonui

Nothing in the article or the sparse ghits indicate any notability. While a lack of ghosts is interesting, it doesn't appear to be particularly notable Travellingcari (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Consensus has consistently found that geographical features such as this are inherently notable (see WP:OUTCOMES). This is of particular notoriety as it's one of the principal peaks on the island of Tahiti and the highest on Tahiti Iti. --Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I apologize for not noticing that before and have now looked over Wikipedia:GEOG#Geography. I don't see that as an absolute keep but will withdraw this if consensus is that it's an automatic keep. I think that the article needs to assert why it's notable i.e. one of two principal peaks as that isn't apparent in google either. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Map clearly shows this mountain as second highest of three shown. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I understand the above-referenced concensus, but frankly this article as is is in need of serious Wikipedia:RESCUE. The Ghosts section violates Wikipedia:V. Good luck finding a Wikipedia:RS that supports the claim in the article. --Darkprincealain (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Ghost section??? I deleted it as vandalism; not from the article creator. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a ghost section when I nominated it. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I the article creator tried to redirect it just now but obviously the nominator wants a discussion. A mountain of 1300 odd metres is as notable as any -the second highest point on Tahiti, perhaps French Polynesia too-expand it or redirect it. The worst thing possible though is to base notability on google hits of rplaces in the world as obscure as this. Many many places and countries on the web, have got hardly a thing on them. Provinces of Kazakhstan which covers hundreds of thousands of sq km haven't many google hits either. Does this mean that because google doesn;t record them that anything in that land space isn't notable? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was the nominator but I was not the one who reverted your redirect. I agree re: relying on google but we have to find something that verified the significance of Thing X and google is often a good starting place. Of course there's also the question of whether Item X is encyclopedic, but that's another story. We'll see where this goes. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was I who reverted the redirect (which I discovered when I went from this AfD to take a look at the article), as I don't think that redirecting the subject of an active AfD discussion is a good idea. With regard to the article, my opinion is keep per precedent for prominent topographic features (WP:GEOG). Deor (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is at present google seems to be finding a renowned tattoo artist of the same name, a rather shady looking gentleman rather than something encyclopedic about a mountain lol ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep but what was your source, Sir Blofeld? Of course it will do poorly on a google test but hopefully it appeared in a reliable source in the first place? Rigadoun (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was based on pure map observation. The map was created by http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/, which I believe is a notable source ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, although Roonui is in use, Ronui is apparently more common (at least historically). I've also changed the name from Mont to Mount as this is the English Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Geographical features such as this are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave

There is nothing in the article or a google search in any language that indicates any notability. I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (schools) since I've heard some schools are automatically notable, but there doesn't appear to be anything about this school that warrants its inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Neutral: nom withdrawn

Keep. Tertiary education institutes are usually considered inherently notable; see for example the proposed guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Espresso Addict; also try a search with the Portuguese name. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

and google news, and google scholar. Now we just need someone with Portuguese to assess all these sources ... --Paularblaster (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Expresso Addict and the sources found by Paularblaster. Indeed, accredited post-secondary education institutions are inherently notable. When using an English language search term for a foreign language entity, not much is going to show up. --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment fair enough, I agree with the above rationale. Nom withdrawn. Travellingcari (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardis_Sabeti

Not notable, despite being recipient of university award, she is not a remarkable scientist Dimdamdocdim (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, The references supplied in the article clearly indicate notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Martijn Hoekstra and the fact that the article and referenced indicate signficant genetic work Travellingcari (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - remarkable & notable are different agendas -- Mitico (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Burroughs Wellcome is an impressive career-transition grant from postdoc to faculty, so it indicates something impressive. However, this is just a postdoc at this point, so it would need to be pretty impressive indeed. A CNN profile might suggest the requisite level of notability, but I can't really assess the impact of the contribution. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~Weak Delete I suggested bringing it here from prod, after i found she had 20 published papers, which is quite a lot for a post-doc. It turns out that the two most cited, both done during her undergraduate work at Harvard, are "Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome" by Author(s): Reich DE, Cargill M, Bolk S, Ireland J, Sabeti PC, Richter DJ, Lavery T, Kouyoumjian R, Farhadian SF, Ward R, Lander ES, in Nature (journal) 411 (6834): 199-204 May 10 2001, which has been cited 681 times by December, 2007, and "Detecting recent positive selection in the human genome from haplotype structure" Author(s): Sabeti PC, Reich DE, Higgins JM, Levine HZP, Richter DJ, Schaffner SF, Gabriel SB, Platko JV, Patterson NJ, McDonald GJ, Ackerman HC, Campbell SJ, Altshuler D, Cooper R, Kwiatkowski D, Ward R, Lander ES in Nature 419 (6909): 832-837 Oct 24 2002 cited 270 times. This sounds very impressive, but In both of these and in almost all of her subsequent work she is one of a large team. The true senior author (listed last as is typical in this subject), is Eric Lander at MIT, both as an undergraduate and postdoc. . She herself has not yet published any work not associated with him, or her research directors at Oxford or Harvard, and is therefore not yet independently notable. They presumably gave her a very strong recommendation, and she will probably become notable. I do not consider being the third woman receiving a summa from Harvard med as notability. Her rock band does not seem to have an article in WP. I discount the publicity. quite possibly driven by motives other than her science, as I would any tabloid reporting. Frankly, I do not know what The daily telegraph's list of geniuses has to do with ~~her,as she is not included on it.~~ anything involving other than tabloid notability. DGG (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- yes she is: "49= Pardis Sabeti (Iranian) Biological anthropologist 9" Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)-- missed her -- sorryDGG (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On one of those two papers, she's the first author, and Lander's the PI (last author), so it's her paper. That's a good publication record & influential paper for a postdoc, but it still seems a bit early. The real point is that she's still in Lander's lab, still a postdoc. So it seems to me that she's up-and-coming but not yet notable. --Lquilter (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete She has in fact just been appointed to a junior faculty position at Harvard. Despite this I say delete. Being junior faculty at Harvard does not make you notable. 18 publications by the age of 32 is not particularly unusual for a biologist. Most of those papers involve a minor contribution from Sabeti. She is lead author on only two and those are highly cited because they are topical. She works at the Broad Institute which is part of the HapMap consortium which has recently generated a large amount of genetic data. She has made one reasonable contribution to statistical genetics - the EHH method for detecting selection. Because she was at the Broad she was able to apply her method to the novel data and consequently her work got a lot of attention. Her method itself is not particularly original, people have been working on methods to detect selection for years they just havent had any data. She may become notable in future but she isn't now. She has won a good amount of research funding but so have many other junior faculty. Fiddletwotdoit (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all very insightful, but a couple of points. 18 publications by postdoc is quite a strong publication record, especially with lead author on a Nature paper. I don't disagree with the assessment of the EHH method -- your comments here seem sensible -- but there is also the matter of the mainstream media press. --Lquilter (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I generally follow DGG's lead on judging scientists, but in this case she clearly has WP:N compliance in terms of media attention and plaudits. If we were only judging her on papers alone I would consider DGG's (and Fiddletwotdoit's) factors more heavily. But she has real-world notability beyond her niche. Meeting WP:BIO isn't the same thing as giving her a Nobel Prize, and we're not -- just an article for a young and unusually notable scientist. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to echo that. I am mildly surprised that I completely disagree with DGG on any AfD, as his opinions are most often rock solid, make me think again, and sometimes make me reconsider. But with the independent press coverage, I really can't do anything but confirm notability here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Predominantly influenced by first author on a heavily cited Nature paper, plus the inclusion in the list in The Telegraph. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Media attention is irrelevant when discussing academic notability. Media coverage of science is very often driven by ulterior motives than acknowledging scientific achievement and is frequently nothing more than personality ego stroking. It is typical of the media to pick individuals with particularly quirky attributes which nonetheless have no bearing on notability: e.g. the fact that Pardis is female in a field dominated by males or the fact she is in a rock-band (!?). Obviously being the third woman to pass her medicine degree with summa caume laude at Harvard is hardly exceptional and is no claim to scientific notability. The truth is that her scientific achievement barely stretches beyond her EHH method, and the rest of her contributions are merely a consequence of the Broad's privileged position in terms of access to data.Basildon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you're correct there. The general notability guidelines per WP:N are what count. The main guidline is about independent reliable sources, with significant coverage. Sabeti has had significant coverage in the CNN article. WP:PROF are additional guidelines to make it easier to determine notability, which don't really matter anymore once the general guidelines are satisfied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even though she may not be notable per WP:PROF or for her scientific achievements, she may be notable in sum total -- for her other media appearances, however earned. To take it to extremes, a scientist who won a major academy or grammy or tony award would likely be notable, even if not for WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You say "the main guidline is about independent reliable sources, with significant coverage" and mention CNN as an example. I hardly find CNN a reliable source, but - regardless - it's not a "news" article, reliability doesn't come into it - it's a blatant and shameless piece of public relations, just like this Wikipedia article. I cautiously add that the >=3 edits from Massachusetts IP addresses are hardly a surprise. Basildon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment: From WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Regardless of personal opinion on CNN, I believe CNN meets that criteria quite well. Of course mistakes happen, the NY TImes even had a scandal a few years ago, but in general they're reliable sources. No comment on the other aspects as I've already cast my "vote" Travellingcari (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - CNN would qualify as what is typically understood as a reliable source. The "genius" article is fluffy, sure, but I'm not sure why you allege that it's "public relations". PR-generated articles are usually on one topic. I don't see how a single press-release would have created this article. That said, there's no question that coverage in mainstream media of scientists is usually fluffy, and may frequently be driven by university PR offices, as you suggest. But if the editorial processes at mainstream media outlets deem something to be publishable, then that is how we determine if it is "notable" for wikipedia purposes. --Lquilter (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Based on a prestigious grant (Burroughs-Wellcome), a minor award (the Spectrum Trailblazers Award), mainstream media coverage (CNN & Telegraph), and a heavily cited first-author Nature paper. This is marginal "notability" for a scientist (the awards & Nature paper) per WP:PROF, and if it were just for that I would go with DGG's take on the matter. The mainstream media coverage, and the Spectrum Trailblazers Award, tip it into "keep" for me. --Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lina, I almost never disagree with you, but how is a grant to a postdoc for transition to a faculty position a prestigious grant? If we start that, what about grants to PhD's to go on to a postdoc, and so on down the line.

And I dont see how an award you consider "minor" makes you think her notable?

The actual standard for scientific notability requires at the least being notable for some independent work of one's own, not being given first authorship on a paper on your advisor's project. She has become involved with notable projects led by more distinguished people. That's a very good way to start a career, but it isnt notability. In the rare cases where we've accepted notability for a postdoc, I think it's been because of a notable independent project. But I haven't kept track of them.

But more important, the main question is the relationship of N=2RS to any actual consideration of any regarding encyclopedic suitability. We have normally not accepted that being hailed as anything by a tabloid gives notability, and have consistently held that coverage, no matter how inflated, of non-notable events does not give notability. I'm not at all sure we do this consistently, or that we should be doing it at all. But since it is the custom here, it would be a major change to eliminate or restrict the basic criterion in the guideline for WP:N. What however is the relationship between the basic guideline and the supplementary guidelines? Is meeting either enough? or does it take both? Or does it have to meet the basic and the supplement is just a guide to it? If we really literally mean the basic, then it is incompatible with WP:NOT NEWS and an number of other policies. Given the uncertanity of this, and that the resolution will take a discussion far beyond this article, I'm changing to Weak Delete, meaning I don't think anyone is the least bit in the wrong who thinks otherwise, and that it's a matter of opinion only. DGG (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, DGG (it's laura not lina, btw). If I did "weak" & "strong" I would probably go with "weak keep", because i am really teetering on the fence here. I wish I knew how two "genius" articles got published in two different sources. They're fairly different articles, although both are "puffy". Anyway, on the specifics, and none of these are strong defenses -- they're all on the fence. (1) The career transition grant from BW is a major grant for a beginning faculty; I think it provides a lot of startup funding for a lab. It's not just for postdoc support, so I think it goes beyond postdoc grants. It's a judgment call though and there are no fixed standards yet. (2) On your point about the interfaces of the notability guideline & the subguidelines, I just don't know, but it seems, to me, that either should be okay. I think the "news" problem will have to get resolved over time -- it shows up a lot in the criminal defendant cases. (3) I think the sum of my comments could be considered a "benefit of the doubt" standard. Given some evidence of notability in several different areas, but not a lot of notability in any one area, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to keep content. --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. First off, declaration of interest: I am acquainted with the article subject. (She's awesome.) That being said, on purely academic grounds she shouldn't be in here. (She will meet the requirements soon, I expect, but not yet.) As a non-scientist I have a healthy scepticism about the number of papers it takes in scientific fields to be noticed, and 20 including conference reports is not that many. The Nature one is marginally notable, but when she publishes a couple of others, and is mentioned as actually having made some sort of breakthrough, then we can revisit it. We now come to the Daily Telegraph article, which I find interesting, yet it suffers from the fatal flaw of not really covering her as such. I really am not sure why so many have suggested keeping it. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as the references provided in Pardis_Sabeti#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Money Masters

This is film fails our notability guidelines for films. There are no reliable sources asserting, or supporting notability — the sole "claim" of notability is that the producer asserts that 50,000 copies were sold, which is a diminutive number and does not meet the "widely distributed" requirement in the guidelines. The only sources I can find which cover the subject are either promotional, trivial, or both — complicating the assessment is that there are literally dozens of unrelated products with the same title. I urge deletion of this topic — Wikipedia should not be a promotional vehicle for films. Haemo (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

50,000 doesn't seem very diminutive to me. I'd say distributing to 50,000 people is distributing pretty widely. The video has been distributed globally, not just nationally or even locally. Again, that's pretty wide distribution. Robert Ham (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that the notability guidelines for films are not applicable because The Money Masters is not a film; it's a video. Robert Ham (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per rather verbose nom. No independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Nominator is right on. This article has no reliable sourcing to even allude to notability besides. It's also pretty POV, and there are no balancing perspectives on the subject. To boot, it's essentially a plot summary. But as for deletion, the reason is lack of notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix - Is probably the most notable video advocating monetary reform, followed by Money as Debt. However, as it stands the article is a mess and needs a balanced POV and references. -- MatthewKarlsen (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for this claim of notability? --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is reliable and it's very useful for understanding modern economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.17.79 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's useful is not a compelling argument; moreso when you consider the fact that this article is supposed to explain the film, and not its views about the modern economy. --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you "explain" a film? What kind of explanation are you expecting? Robert Ham (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is not a MSM article spoon-feeding you what you think is notable and what is not is also not a compelling argument. And that is the only thing you rely upon in your argument. --David Shankbone 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

- No, it's not. It's squarely rooted in our notability guidelines. I don't care if it's mainstream, or whatever — I care that it's a reliable source, and your demeaning insinuations about my editorial judgment (and that of the other editors here) do nothing to advance your argument. --Haemo (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not useful. The article is just repeating the misleading [25] claims made in this video as if they were a fact Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I have been searching for even one reliable source that mentions this film at all, and so far have not found any. If the film meets any Wikipedia criterion for notability, I must have missed it. "Usefulness" and "reliability" of the film itself are not Wikipedia criteria for notability. Famspear (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Where Wikipedia continually fails. We strive to be an alternative to the MSM, but we wait for them to tell us whether we should explore or examine an issue, a movie, a book, whatever. The Money Masters has 106,000 Google hits. Just because The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times does not discuss something does not mean it is unnotable. Please, people, come up with better reasons to delete than "The Mainstream Media didn't tell me it's worth my attention." At a certain point, whe do we say, "Okay, this is clearly getting the attention of quite a few people and we should examine it neutrally, even though the MSM is ignoring it"? I know nothing about this movie, I have not seen it, and what I saw in its article I probably think it's a crock of BS. But that doesn't mean it is unnotable. --David Shankbone 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it does not — nor can anyone find — have any reliable sources which assert or support notability. Which, yes, makes it fail our notability guidelines for films. Your argument about the number of GHits is, as I mention in the nomination, bogus because there are a bunch of things called "The Money Masters", which have nothing to do with this film, and are probably notable. Arguments about the "mainstream media" have no bearing, as our guidelines are very clear on this subject — your suggestion amounts to "let's ignore our guidelines because I feel this is notable". --Haemo (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - There is a critique of The Money Masters (and another video from William Still) by G. Edward Griffin who is himself a notable person. Robert Ham (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually found this source, while searching — It's a critique of Bill Still's views, as laid out in a couple of his documentaries. There is virtually nothing said of the documentaries at all; in fact, they are mentioned by name each only once in the course of the article. Furthermore, Freedom Force international is not a reliable source — moreover, as Mr Griffin happens to be the founder and director, so I'm pretty sure self-publication guidelines apply.--Haemo (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Griffin's strongest claim to fame is that he has a Wikipedia entry about him, it seems. According to Wikipedia, he is a Certified Financial Planner. Even if this is so, and even if you view CFP as an economics credential, his voicing an opinion about The Money Masters is hardly proof of the notability of the latter. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This home-video is noteworthy and it has some people listening. Not just students like me. It is a time-document and definitely deserves a place in a encyclopedia of the world.

--The question is: who benefits? Dmitri Schrama, Utrecht, The Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.190.37 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it notable? Do you have any reliable sources to support this assertion? --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete (Reviews could not be located after a long search, therefore not notable) - First, I'm Ekonomics_geek. I tried editing the article by supplying the criticism section [26], but Robert Ham kept deleting it, arguing that my criticism is OR and not a peer reviewed work of science, which is ironic, because neither is this film. I suggested that the criticism section [27] should stay just until the film's reviews could be located, because quite frankly, the article read like an ad or a propaganda piece. However, the only "review" that could be googled was that (IMO not notable at all) Griffin mention, and Robert Ham just kept deleting the criticism several times per day. I don't have time for this nonsense. So I left (and threw out the password to the original account). If Wikipedia wants to be edited by authors unfamiliar with the subject matter, so be it. I'm glad someone nominated the article for deletion though. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The deleting of this information is utter jibberish. It is a informative and revealing documentary. I urge you people to see it, before you judge in this matter. As my dutch friend above, I ask: Que bono? avien (talk) 1:00, 4. February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If this forum debates solely the quality of the entry, or the credibility of material presented within "The Money Masters" DVD per se', I cannot take time to discern. If the later, I own the video and several notable people wrote reviews/comments that were on the brochure that came with the DVD. Negatives reviews/comments, weren't included for apparent reasons. The comment carrying the most "weight" was from Milton Friedman to wit: "As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of you Monetary Reform Act...You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception...I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions..Best Wishes." Some other recommendations: Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, author, "The Naked Capitalist" and "The Naked Communist"; Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and G. Edward Griffin, author, "The Creature from Jekyl Island, A Second Look at The Federal Reserve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.182.96 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 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 keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clay County Fair

google and google news searches return hits, however none seem to assert any notability. Yes, the fair has attracted a number of name performers, but these people have performed all over the place -- nothing apparently special or notable about their appearance at this fair. Article has been orphaned since November 2006 Travellingcari (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:ORG for notability (over 1,000 hits on google news) & not totally orphaned per links. Could use some tidying for NPOV -- Mitico (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the claims of being the largest county fair in the state of Iowa, the second largest agriculture exposition in North America, and one of the largest county fairs in the United States assert its notability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It is by far the largest county fair in the Midwest, and is widely known in the region, and as noted, passes notability tests. --Moline670 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unleaded (band)

Delete unsigned band claiming winning some nn battle of the band and a redlink award; sourced to its home page and myspace, etc., fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Carlossuarez46 & WP:BAND. Could not find any independent mention of this band -- Mitico (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (but rename) - A Google search returns just under 2000 hits. Doesn't winning a competition organised by a major music channel confer some sort of notability? Oh... but I'd rename the article - all the references I could see refer to the band as The Unleaded. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BAND. Winning a competition on an island with a population as tiny as Cyprus means nothing. The "VH1 Song Contest" or whatever it's called gets only a handful of hits, obviously not a major award either. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tears Of Rage

Planned album that has been pushed back for years, of a band that is falling apart. Recording has not yet begun. There is so little information available, that it is impossible to give any information about it. To be short, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and almost no information. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Cenarium (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, add back if and when album gets done Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry's Uptown Bar

Claim of notability is that it was regularly visited by Lee Harvey Oswald. That may not be enough for WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, there are also claims that it's one of the last of the NOLA corner bars, but in the end there aren't enough references to indicate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete no significant coverage from sources Corpx (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above -- Cenarium (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Todd Speakman

Nominated for deletion because this is a hoax biographical article -- Mitico (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe not a hoax for sure, but definately NN & unsourced. Mitico (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Article does not have reliable sources and fails verifiability. The claim to notability is that he is a professional indoors lawn bowler with a second place finish in the 2006 World Championships in the Singles. I know next to nothing about lawn bowling. In my googling, as far as I can tell, this page appears to represent the actual draw from 2006. There is no Todd Speakman listed. I am unable to find any mentions of Todd Speakman anywhere that appear to be about the individual listed in the article. I may have erred in my research, but I am simply unable to find any other results. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - googling "Todd Speakman" together with the word "lawn" gets exactly 7 google hits. Looks like a hoax article to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Ladan

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete until such time as he plays in a senior competition. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also going by creator's contribs, a possible case of WP:COI. Paulbrock (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability, King of the North East 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Sandstein (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also deleted:

List of errors on stamps of Portugal and the colony of Lourenço Marques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
List of errors on stamps of Portugal and Portuguese colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Category:Lists of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps

Nominating this page and all the linked pages; they comprise a list of misprints of stamps from countries that are ex-colonies of Portugal. I can see that someone is putting substantial effort into this, but have trouble seeing how this esoterica is even remotely encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfire (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment as a procedural note, if multiple articles are nominated (as noted above, "this page and all the linked pages"), then they all should be noted and tagged. The list of articles is below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged all articles listed below with AfD templates. I have no opinion on deletion, though a merge of the various years might not be unwise (Angola 1886 with 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1921, for example). I tagged the articles mainly because, had they been included here but not templated, they may have been improperly deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete defines cruft. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep these need more context, but fundamentally there are lots of encyclopedic value in philatelic and numismatic errors. A quick scan for references shows about 600 hits in Google books for "postage stamp"+errors, including books cited by the Encyclopedia Americana. It's not much more cruft than explanations of esoteric articles of interest only to software engineers, car enthusiasts, American Idol viewers, UFOlogists, or other small field. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and strawman: nobody is nominating Postage stamp error for deletion. Jfire (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a pretty-much perfect example of what the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" part of WP:NOT is all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
comment. There is nothing the least bit indiscriminate about this information. I would question whether it would find a place in specialized encyclopedias about philately: that's really the only question, and we'll need someone who knows something about philatelic encyclopedias to answer it. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Keep As stated above, this information is not indiscriminate and has plenty of value in a specialized encyclopedia. The only question is whether there are actual listings of this elsewhere in published materials, and that User:JPPINTO didn't just dig through his/her stamp collection to get this info. Joshdboz (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't even matter if someone else has published a listing of errors on Portuguese ex-Colony stamps (which I highly doubt). It's simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. These articles fall victim to both WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#IINFO, not to mention WP:Overcategorization. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my argument: I don't doubt that this information is contained in some form in philatelic catalogs. But (a) they wouldn't organize it like this (why "Portuguese ex-Colonies"?), and (b) that doesn't even matter, because, Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog, in the same way it's not a telephone directory or sales catalog. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete all I agree entirely with the statement that Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. Furthermore, I imagine that someone referred to a catalog-- either printed or internet site-- to get this very specific information. Anyone who is serious about collecting stamps, coins, or anything else where authenticity is a high priority IS NOT going to rely on a source that "anyone can edit". If you happen to have a rare Angolan stamp from 1912 and you think it's even more rare because of a printing error, this isn't the place to verify it. Philatelists, don't use Wikipedia as your website. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete We're not a catalog of printing errors on stamps, neither should we document every stamp ever published. Transwiki/USERFY if possible Corpx (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is very specialized info even by philatelists' standards. There is a project in wikibooks that aims to be a complete catalog, the lists could be transwikied there. Stan (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Does Wikia have a Philately wiki? -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal

Blatant advertising; the page is written by User:Joshrosenthal. Prod removed by anon without comment; likely Rosenthal when he wasn't logged in. I can't find a trace of press on this guy; while there is a musician and a record exec with this name who might deserve a page, I don't think this fellow does. Chubbles (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible delete, among other things, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, possibly WP:HOAX (I can't imagine that none of the things in that rambling article aren't embelishments), and WP:V. I don't know that this is WP:SPAM but it is certainly WP:SOAP. Redfarmer (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete' To be fair - and if true - as an actor training at NIDA and work with Sydney TC is possibly notable but the rest needs huge amount of work! Vultureofbook (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - there is nothing in WP:BIO that says if someone trained at a prestigious location they are automatically notable. Rather, there are several clear ways to research someone's notability, primarily third party sources that can be cited in regards to said person. I think this article clearly fails the primary notability guidelines in that there appears to be no reliable independant sources for it. Anything could make someone "possibly notable" but the point of AfD discussions is to look for facts relating to that notability, not voting keep because they may be notable. This may have come off harsh, but I'm just trying to be direct and I obviously assumed your vote was in good faith. - Gwynand (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah just had a google search on him and have changed my vote! Vultureofbook (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. From a google search, it appears there may be a UFC referee who may actually be notable enough to have an WP article... but not this Josh Rosenthal. Gwynand (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Its obviously a puff article for someone who isnt very notable at all. Kingpomba (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all above. freshacconcispeaktome 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unopposed

This was an article that was originally listed as CsD. I feel that it has a little bit too much credibility to deleted it arbitrarily without an AfD. We have here another local band with questionable notability and a member lineup that is chronically unstable. Trusilver 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This was speedied once before and has since been recreated and significantly expanded. Keeper | 76 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. But they are still not notable by our standards for bands. So I guess this means they are now Opposed? Keeper | 76 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. After the AfD, we will have to leave a message on their myspace pages saying that they need to change their name. :) Trusilver 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BAND. --EndlessDan 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Been through the article and as far as I can tell, it doesn't fulfil the criteria set out at WP:BAND. Simple as — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Fails WP:BAND. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Trusilver told me I could post here. Sorry I responded late... I had no access to the net. Ya know what, I don't get it. I just think that everyone is taking wiki a little far on the standards. I may be alone on that, but from my understanding and interaction with others it doesn't to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopposed98 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

E. Bernard Jordan

DELETE. NN and unsourced - unless being a fraud would give him some notability. Fails WP:BIO. EndlessDan 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, the article in nypress is an independent reliable source, and the significant coverage there makes this pass WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think that a single newspaper article devoted to making fun of the guy establishes notability. Deor (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Deor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Somethings Gotta Give (club)

Non-notable quarterly club night; trivial references (mere mentions or "night out"-type listings). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete as per nom. Absolutely no claim of notability in article; borderline advert. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Being a resident of the town and an advocate of the local music scene i believe this entry to be valid and worthwhile. The references to an "advert" are unfounded as no mention of upcoming events, dates, locations or even upcoming posters are shown. This is purely a historical and referenced article of local interest. Do not delete. I'm a relatively new user so if this is out or accordance with wiki user behavior I apologize. --Staticseven (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Staticseven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - in the end, not that notable. Really falls victim per WP:LOCAL as this has gone unnoticed outside of Bolton --T-rex 06:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again I have to disagree. It seems the main argument of WP:LOCAL is that most articles in this case are considered a stub. I don't believe this is the case in this article. --Staticseven (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
Keep this is not a stub or advertisement. it is background information on a club night with a groundbreaking ethos. i don't understand why this information is up for deletion. --Stairsfallingdownstairs (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Stairsfallingdownstairs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - fails to convince me of any notability. Also, no indication of any "ground-breaking" ethos. - fchd (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ My final point is that if local people/fans have bothered to comment against this articles proposed deletion then its seems to be a worthy addition to wiki. Local people feel it is worthwhile to wiki this subject for others by the simple fact the page has been created, and myself and others are fighting for its position. Surely any serious addition (i.e not comic or fraudulent) deserves a place on wikipedia? --Staticseven (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.244.124 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One !vote per person, please. See also WP:NOTE w/r/t notability as a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Precious Roy (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Frankly, I would have speedied as G11--the listing of events in the past in this sort of detail is an implied advertisement for the club, and inappropriate use of WP. That some local people like it is not unexpected. I suppose every amateur in their line-up approves of the idea heartily, also. DGG (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Jeeze, when you tell me I shoulda speedied it, I guess I really shoulda. Precious Roy (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as a website with no assertion of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Diversity Trainer Network (service)

Originally tagged for speedy as spam, removed by author. Even in the edited form, it still looks like spam. No sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as non-notable. --Bonadea (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy A7 and so tagged. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete possibly a speedy.DGG (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Diversity Trainer Network is an organization for diversity professionals. As such, it serves an important role in supporting the cultural diversity profession. The article described the organization, its purpose, and its importance as an education and training entity.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources added to establish notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaw-Yan

Not Notable, unsourced statements for 9 months, now removed, not claim of notability & one source about a club opening, in addition still has a some what advertorial tone even after basic clean-up. Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep common form of Filipino kickboxing, notable in FMA for its mountain kick. Ref.: Yaw Yan, The Philippine Dance of Death ("Inside Kung-fu" Magazine, November 1982, Vol. 9, No. 11). From a TV show ("Gameplan"): [28]. Canadian school: [29]. Public demo.: [30] (look under 12:45PM). Stickwork: [31]. Blog: [32]. Plenty of videos on YouTube too. JJL (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you add those refs in? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I was the one who added the club opening ref. I searched for references online yesterday and only came up with this and other articles. The other articles suggested that the sport is used in mixed-martial arts tournament and that these practitioners actually won. Even if they are relaible sources (newspapers) I just didn't feel that they will add anything significant to the article other than "Yaw-yan is used in various mixed-martial tournaments in the Philippines [1][2][3]." It is also featured on TV, problem is I don't know how to cite tv programs or remember episodes. The usual lack of online sources for Phil. subjects also pose a problem (I think sources in the net goes only as far as early 2000's)--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say sourcing it's use in MMA is needed, any source is better than a the current lack. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Okay, I've added the refs that I feel appropriate (as these tournaments are shown on TV). As I said earlier it only asserts that Yaw-yan is notable and practiced in the Phils.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vasquez family massacre

Nothing but a plot summary for a soap opera. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It fails WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a plot element of no evident wider significance. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per not notable. Soaps do have story line articles but they are generally all on one page and this is a plot that took place on The 101 on DirecTV. Definitely not notable enough for its own article. IrishLass (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this "article" is orphaned, not notable and any some of its info is already summarized elsewhere. — TAnthony^Talk 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Storm Keough

Declined speedy. Only assertion of notability is relation to Lisa Marie Presley. DarkAudit (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete (but correctly declined speedy). Notability is not inherited. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Martijn Hoekstra (that's hard to spell). Notability isn't inherited in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, notability is not inherited, I agree, per various precedents.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Return (band)

Non notable. Orphaned for nearly 2 years. No other sources but their home site. Simple searches yield nothing. Metal Head (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Several major label albums (easily verifiable via online shops), several hits on national charts (ref added). I've tagged it as needing more references, which is really the only problem with it. Not the easiest band name to search for and get meaningful results, but a band that has had hit albums is bound to have received coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Michig; band has had multiple major-label albums and at least one chart single, so they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This band was really big in Norway. I know this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, but nr 1 in a smaller country should qualify. Inserting a hit, like [33] ,gives 23 K Ghits. Greswik (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable with charting hits. Chubbles (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Institute of bio-it

non notable organization, the article was tagged for speedy deletion for copyvio , then proposed for deletion, the author has removed the tag. There is a conflict of interest too. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable organization. It appears to be a start-up as the main website (which seems to be the only source) is not filled. It has a surface but no content.--Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the fact that the author has repeatedly removed the PRODs without any comment on either the discussion page or edit summary caused alarm bells for me! The article makes no claim of notability, and googling the exact phrase returns just under 600 hits, one of which is this link which I think is a page about the author of the article, and which leads me to agree with Cenarium's view that there is indeed a conflict of interest. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete but dont judge by removing repeated prods--the second prod is my fault--I should not have placed it, but sent it here directly. If one prod is removed, there's no point in another. But this srtuck me as typical attempt at publicity for a new organisation. DGG (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it wasn't the repeated PROD removal I was judging; it was the repeated PROD removal with no comment on the discussion page or edit summary.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BusinessLine

Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability, only that it exists. Mere existence is not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the article is just a list of publications, with no encyclopedic value that I can see. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note IP editor has removed the AfD tag and blanked this page. Both have been reverted. DarkAudit (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete This is one more in a long line of afd nominated articles by this user that smack of WP:Spam and lack notability.

--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, self-promoting spam. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Dooley

Speedy tag for spam removed by author. No secondary independent sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Very poor article and reeks of self-promotion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Diego Lofino

Speedy tag for nonsense removed by author. It's still nonsense. DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Seems to be a player of Vatican Cities national team. They may not be good, but probably enough to meet WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Delete per Paularblaster
- Comment the article as originally posted and tagged was so ludicrous as to cast doubt on the existence of this person. There are still no sources to prove that this person actually exists and plays professionally. DarkAudit (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - True, it looked like utter nosense. I tagged it as unreferenced. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The name alone gets no hits outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Either a hoax or very non-notable; note that all the other players on the team are red links. (I just can't help linking to red link.) Furthermore, the team itself seems marginally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- http://nationalfootballteamsnonfifa.741.com/Vatican.htm is a source. It's not very good. But it's a source. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable player. I realise that Vatican City is a very small nation, but you'd have thought a player in their team would get more than nine Google hits! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The Vatican doesn't have a professional team. This might clarify things a little. Whether ad hoc sides fielded for one-off games against Monaco and San Marino even count as a Vatican City national football team (even an amateur one) is itself debatable. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Vatican City national football team should be fixed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. The nominator has gone ahead and done the merge, so there is nothing more for the AfD to accomplish at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Butch Coolidge

Merge to List of Pulp Fiction characters per discussion here.--The Dominator (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge (though I understand, without a nom to delete this isn't the pp for it) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Not a deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep (is speedy keep a valid option here?) on the grounds that it's not a deletion proposal, and this is Articles For Deletion. If you want to merge it, use the usual merge proposal channels. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Procedural - nominator wants a merge and this is not the proper venue. Edward321 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush (band)

Contested prod. Prodder believes the band is a hoax and has done some research to try and prove the claims in the article. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete I've done some searching myself and have found no sources, reliable or otherwise, to establish the existence of this band. The band is not listed on the website of the supposed record label, and a search for the band members doesn't turn up any results. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. No search results for the band plus various keywords; one of the album names turns up zero hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:V at the very least.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Even if it isn't a hoax, it isn't notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Hoax & WP:BAND. --EndlessDan 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

National Lampoon's Adam & Eve

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/National Lampoon's Adam & Eve

Non-notable film. Appears to be direct-to-video. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Even the official site has been taken down! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. If the fact a website no longer exists becomes criteria for notability, 99% of all film and TV articles would need to be deleted. Produced by a major brand, released internationally (I bought a copy at a Best Buy here in Canada). Perfectly notable. Unless Wikipedia rules have changed there is no prohibition on direct-to-DVD productions. If that is the case, then I expect to see Justice League: The New Frontier nominated forthwith. Additional: I've removed the advertising copy. It's still a stub, but the National Lampoon connection makes it notable. 23skidoo (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment. I'm concerned about anyone using the end of an official website as justification for claiming NN. Please note that this film was released 3 years ago. Most official film websites are only active for about 6 months to a year, less if the film isn't particularly popular or successful, neither of which are criteria for notability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - has notable actors and is part of a notable franchise. Direct-to-video may sometimes correlate with non-notability, but it does not create it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song)

This individual song does not meet WP:MUSIC for individual songs, even if by a notable musical group. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The album Scouting for Girls (album) contains two singles which have been released and have placed on the charts. Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song), however, has not even been released as a single, and has no chart information suggesting individual notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate if it charts. (P.S. The page name is annoying me so I'm going to move it anyway.) ^anemone│_projectors 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiable info seems to exist yet on the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, too early yet, not a crystal ball.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as the song does not meet any of the critera for WP:MUSIC and per WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe redirect the page to the album article for now and then it can be recreated at a more suitable time. AngelOfSadness talk 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merged & redirected to List of Pulp Fiction characters#Jules Winnfield --Stormie (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jules Winnfield

Merge to currently nonexistent List of Pulp Fiction characters per discussion here.--The Dominator (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Not a deletion request. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project)

Delete as per WP:OR. This work is not published yet and still in developing/progressing phase. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The project will only launch next week. I've amended the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. 9 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No prejudice against recreation if and when the project becomes notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Project not yet launched. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The project started - also, the project website is live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several of the deletion arguments appear to me spurious; original research does not apply here, and there is no necessity for biographical articles for academics. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Canepari

Delete as per WP:OR and WP:BIO. It seems that people are getting interested to promote their research on WP which is really unfortunate. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do intend promote my teacher'e research and it isn't unfortunate at all, since it only let ideas to travel faster; this is a particular subject where instead too often news travels very slowly. -- gfl87

(Note: e-mail address removed) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for your comment. With due respect to your work, I have to say that Wikipedia doesn't support Original Research and such article is considered as candidate for deletion. Please have a look at this page - WP:OR. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete I've added a bibliography section, but I'm not finding a lot of notability in a gsearch. However, this may be something that needs references from linguistic journals that aren't online. (And I'm not a big fan of AfDs started 3 minutes after creation of the article. Seems kind of bitey). --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments 1) The article was created at 14:15 [34] so this AfD took some 45 minutes to be created. 2) It was originaly put as a speedy A7 which I declined. Pedro : Chat 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies -- I only looked at the history for this capitalization, not for any other capitalizations.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Well it's a clear case of WP:OR violation and creator himself also confessed. And there is no harm to go for AfD if it really fails on one of the main three core policies. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on comment: actually the creator did not "confess" that this was original research; he stated that his aim was to make someone else's research more readily available. This is the very opposite of WP:OR. Since we're dealing with an academic WP:PROF is the touchstone, not WP:BIO. These two facts mean that the initial rationale given for deletion ("per WP:OR and WP:BIO") is not really applicable, but we might still consider whether the few secondary discussions of this research that have been found indicate that this professor is notable under WP:PROF. On that point I am still not offering an opinion, but I am increasingly concerned at the looseness with which short-hand references to quite detailed policies and guidelines are bandied about in AfD discussions. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep One of Canepari's books (Manuale di fonetica) was reviewed in the journal Language (published by the Linguistic Society of America) this month. It's true that ^canIPA isn't used much except by Canepari and his students, but he certainly isn't considered a crank. The style of the article needs to be improved (to be more grammatical and less uniformly laudatory), but I think Canepari and his work are notable enough to be worth mentioning. --Śiva (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And some of his earlier books were reviewed in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association in the late 1980s or early 1990s. There were some negative comments toward his phonetic notation (e.g., too many hard-to-distinguish-between consonant symbols) and some positive ones (e.g., more detailed vowel transcription is useful). – ishwar (speak) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

comment there's fairly detailed discussion of his system in Warren Shibles, "A Comparative Phonetics of Italian: toward a Standard IPA Transcription", Italica 71:4 (1994), pp. 548-566. (on jstor). I wouldn't feel competent to suggest whether or not this significantly adds to his notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete; his book might be reviewed, but for a WP:BIO article, we need biographical sources, sources about him. This article doesn't even have the obligatory four newspaper mentions and self-written biography that most of these have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: still not giving an opinion on this article, but just commenting that I think with an academic it would be more useful to concentrating on WP:PROF than on WP:BIO. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an article about a person, so we have to worry about WP:BIO. It's not like someone being a professor gives us carte blanche to forget about the libel laws and the rules about sourcing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: I only started the article beginning from what someone wrote in the respective italian article; then the actual content is very very poor: how can you find it laudatory? If you can understand Italian, let's read the italian article: that could be laudatory... Any attempt to correct my English grammar is very kindly accepted!

Moreover if you think it's better to get it as a WP:PROF than as a WP:BIO, let's change the cathegory. I don't think to delete the article is a good idea, since it somehow gives some more about the subject & allows everyone to discover something new otherwise a little more difficult to find. I think it's a question of cultural openness. Indeed if someone wants to delete and redo better that page, feel free to do. -- Gfl87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfl87 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Whatever we may want to call it we need some sources, some indication of notability. The review of the book seems highly relevant, and I just identified others of this & another book via WorldCat, though I havent looked to read them: Phonetica, 61, no. 1 (2004): 59-61, Language problems & language planning. 30, no. 2, (2006): 193. That's at least minimal notability. His books are fairly frequently held in the US for works of this nature (some in about 50 US libraries); the bibliography is incomplete--I added some but not all--most of the work was published in both English and Italian. Can anyone find if his works are widely used in courses? that's undoubted notability per WP:PROF. I added some bio details from the itWP--they would have been missed in copying the source code, since they are actually in a very clever template. DGG (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
keep per DGG's demonstration that subject meets WP:PROF, however minimally. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
keep per DGG. John254 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cotter

Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention: It seems that this article is being tagged twice. I am requesting moderators to resolve this problem by removing anyone (preferably my one as I tagged later). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up and not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You better go and debate in appropriate place. You may notice that I have already requested admins to remove this nomination as it was tagged twice. Your post clearly shows your intention to post a keep comment on my nominations which is really unfortunate as we are here for the betterment of Wikipedia not for involving in text-war. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The dual notification and lack of link here has been fixed. [35]Pedro : Chat 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete non notable personalty on a small regional network. All the article is a rehash of the network website.76.180.29.38 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into X&Y. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What If (Coldplay song)

Unrefferenced article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete/Question - Has this song charted, anywhere? I can't find any evidence of such. It was released as a single, but I don't really see significant coverage for the song, just a one-sentence mention in articles about the album. So, without charting (assuming that's true) and no real coverage, I'd say delete per WP:MUSIC.Gwynand (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to X&Y, the album this song is from. Since it was released as a radio single in a few countries, it should be mentioned in the album's article. Bláthnaid 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I agree that it does not meet WP:MUSIC but am fine with a mention in the album's article. SorryGuy Talk 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cotter. This is a duplicate nom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cotter

Article about a non notable person. NYYankee2684 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into Live 2003. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Moses (song)

Unreferenced article about a song, No indication of notability. No mention of chart performance, use in other media (film, TV, etc), or any awards. Rtphokie (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep A basic search shows the song seems notable froma notable band. Added some citations to it regarding the information presented.--Pmedema (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No question that the band is notable, how does the song seem notable? A basic search turns up lots of hits to lyric sites and videos (not surprising from a notable band) but nothing that indicates that this song is notable enough to warrant an article. Has it charted anywhere? --Rtphokie (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Pmedema is wrong, the song itself has to be notable. Which it isn't. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Live 2003, the album this song is from. The article says that Chris Martin's son was named after this song, which according to this is correct. Bláthnaid 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Parachutes (album). Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We Never Change (Coldplay song)

Unreferenced orphaned article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect/merge to the album the song's for, as is standard practise with these types of articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Parachutes (album). The information in this article is original research. Bláthnaid 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladder to the Sun

Unreferenced 2 sentence article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete This song didn't make it onto an album, and I can't find any information about it beyond brief mentions. Bláthnaid 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete This is based on the lack of cited secondary sources to establish notability. I'm not persuaded that this should form a precedent for future aviation incidents and presence of secondary sources should be a sufficient test for them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AirAsia Flight 104

A non-notable aviation incident, it's not an uncommon occurrence for an aircraft to skid off a runway. No deaths occurred. No long lasting repercussions for the aviation industry. Any news hits don't discuss the incident in such a way to give it long-lasting notability within WP guidelines. Russavia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I looked for precedence in List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and found Qantas Flight 1 which was an aviation incident where the airplane skidded off the runway and no deaths occurred.--Pmedema (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The first part of the reasoning is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. The second part, QF1 is a notable accident as it has been covered in depth by news media years after the incident and did have ramifications for the airline, such as the insistance on calling the accident an 'incident', spending millions of dollars repairing an aircraft which should have all rights been written off but not done so in order to protect their "no airframe loss" record in the jet era, having the aircraft sent to China to have repairs done, CASA blaming Qantas for the accident, etc, etc. All in all, QF1 is a very notable accident due to long-term media and literatury coverage. AirAsia Flight 104, however, sources which give it notability in context of the WP:AVIATION accident task force guidelines, and WP policies, can't be found. --Russavia (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment My intention was not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it was that there was a precedence based on the argument of "airplane over shooting and no injuries" was a kind of a standard for the nom. My intention was more on the idea of common outcomes from AfD where if there is a common outcome (a Persuasive precedent)...then why not? As for one article being more notable then another, my opinion was that this was still an aircraft accident and see no issue with keeping it, not that it was any more notable then any other article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It actually is very uncommon for commercial aircrafts to skid off the runway. That's why the incidents are the subject of multiple secondary sources like this one. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Runway over-runs may not be a regular occurence, but they are significantly more common than other, more serious, incidents. The article has no supporting material. There were no fatalities and only two injuries out of 116 people on board, and negligible effects to the airport's operation (4 delayed departures and 5 diverted arrivals is hardly huge). Wexcan (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to AirAsia, since it's suggested in the article that the timing of this, weeks before an IPO, affected the value of the stock. With thousands of takeoffs and landings worldwide, air accidents happen. There are aborted takeoffs, there are emergency landings, there are cases where the landing gear failed, there are blown tires, there are incidents of sudden turbulence where people were injured. Since each flight has a designation (Air____, Flight____), and there are reports made, even a minor accident involving an airplane will be more likely to end up in a database than, say, a bus plunging off of a road in South America, or a three car accident on a multi-lane highway. Not every accident is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. Also, articles must have reliable sources to attest to their notability for the articles to even remain on WP, and this one has absolutely no sources. Concur that it could be mentioned on Air Asia if reliables sources are found that tie it to the IPO somehow. - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom and comments by BillCJ. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I fail to see any long term notability for the incident Corpx (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Move to Wikinews? Just a suggestion « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:24 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Cant due to license incompatibility Corpx (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Swallowed In The Sea

Unreferenced one line article on a song, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to X&Y, the album this song is from. It is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to X&Y. The song is on the album and one will likely search for the song. Parable1991 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Up and go

Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather tag it for Speedy Deletion! A bad formed in Summer 2006 with no source that proves its notability can easily be a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And could you please show me the so called hard work in this article ? -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7, no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC and a search for sources turned up nothing useful. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this A7. No claim to notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Should have been a db-band. Does not meet WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jazzin' for Blue Jean and move the citation there. Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazzin For Blue Jean

Delete as it fails at WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Could you please stop biting me? Concentrate on basic policies of WP. Show me a single source that verifies its claim. I will withdraw my nomination. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"For easily the coolest supplement found here – or anywhere, for that matter – we get Jazzin’ for Blue Jean, the full-length version of the “Blue Jean” video. " [36] Catchpole (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added this citation in the article. In addition, I created reference section made some copy-edit. And last but not the least - I am Withdrawing my nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blue Jean. It's blindingly obvious that it should be merged instead of deleted or kept as a stand-alone article lacking independent notability or potential for expansion. A variant of a song is almost always covered in the article about the original song.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Jazzin For Blue Jean is not the title of an extended version of Blue Jean by David Bowie, it is the name given to a video Jazzin' for Blue Jean which contains the song Blue Jean. 82.11.54.83 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy redirect to Jazzin' for Blue Jean, a better article about the exact same topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MailList Controller

Delete as it fails at WP:NOTE. Moreover, it seems that it is a clear case of violation WP:OR. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its a clear case. I think the category is the right place for it. Please don't see this as offend: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions MM1973 (talk)

Delete - more per WP:CORP, a commercial software product that makes no case for notability or even for significant difference from similar packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? Have you tested it and are you familiar with this software? MM1973 (talk)

Comment: I read the article. What it said when I wrote this response was, MailList Controller sends personalized email messages to a group of recipients and includes functions for subscription management. It works like an ordinary mail client and requires a legimate email account to send newsletters to subscribers. This has no third party references to show notability, and doesn't say that it does anything you wouldn't expect an email list manager to do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I guess "it does not more than you expect" (based on the description) would match all software products listed here. I tried to write the article from a neutral point of view. Articles in Category:Windows_software are more like a listing. Should I add links to third party software sites as reference? e.g. c|net download.com. Btw. I am bit shocked about your response and the whole discussion. After I reviewed the other articles in this category I thought that my article is not be so bad that it would require deletion. MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this discussion is the notability of the software, not the way it was written. And you are free to nominate other articles you feel do not meet those criteria. Good sources to list are independent, reliable sources, that are not listings. So C|net editorial review would be a good source, but the description on C|net wouldn't be, as it is not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply Type in MailList Controller in the google search and you'll get 100.000 hits ... Should I move it to the stubs, so that I can improve it later - maybe this would be a good solution at this point? I think there is no reason to delete the article completely.

It is not uncommon for software solutions to have large numbers of ghits, yet some might see it as a indication of notability in itself. To be comepltely sure, just fish out some of the aforementioned independent reliable sources. I didn't find any proper sources in the first three pages, but there are plenty of results to look into. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I found it in the top 25 most popular Email downloads on download.com. At position 12, listed in the top25 downloads for 27 weeks. Source: http://www.download.com/3101-2158-0-1.html?tag=pop.software MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you Ihcoyc, I will rewrite this part. MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete failing WP:N. I had already prodded the article, should I see this AfD as a rejection of the prod? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Why should the article been deleted? I just checked the windows software category and found many other programs, some of them are totally unknown such as FileMatrix or Metapad or MailJet. This is the first article I contributed to Wiki and I thought this article has much more notability as some others. MM1970 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MM1973 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, thank you for taking time contributing to wikipedia. I don't think that this software meets the guidelines in WP:N. As you just indicated, there may be many other articles that don't meet this guideline. That doesn't mean that this article should be kept, but rather that we should take a good look at those other articles, and see if they do meet the criteria. WP:OSE is clearer on it than I am. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to offend, but I don't share your opinion. I am new to wiki and I saw that I should remove the prod tag, if I disagree with the proposed deletion. Is that the correct way? or should I add the under construction tag and try to improve the article? MM1973 —Preceding comment was added at 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are actualy 2 things happening simultanious here. There is a PROD tag, which you can remove. And there is this deletion discussion, which you can't remove. You are free to remove the prod tag, but not the AfD tag. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Shu-Hao

This actor has been awarded the "Best Actor" "Golden Bell Award" in 2007. This award does not seem like a very important one, but is an award all the same. 8 Ghits for "Zhang Shu-Hao". All in all, I don't think this actor meets WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) withdrawn. It seems notability has been established within reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as there is no such source that supports his awards and career. Fails at WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this entry should not be deleted. Golden Bell Awards is the most important award in Taiwan area. Its status is just like the Emmy Awards in Taiwan. He has beaten many older and more famous actors in Taiwan, and won the award at a young age of 19. Although he doesn't have many works now, he sure IS a promising young actor who is still active in Taiwanese Drama field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drickchen (talk • contribs)
I moved this here from the talk, and reckon it should be seen as a keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - if the status of the awards in Taiwan are what Drickchen states, then it should be kept for sure. matt91486 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I got 22,000 ghits for "張書豪," which is how you would expect most people to write about him. Remember, media coverage doesn't have to be in English. The Golden Bell awards are discussed at zh:金钟奖, and they seem significant. Rigadoun (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we should put in a translation request for the Golden Bell awards so as to avoid similar AfDs in the future? matt91486 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notability has been established.Snake66 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanhoop

Delete as fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Provided references are also very poor. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable band. --Stormie (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alyson hunter

Delete as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search provides a clear idea that this person is not notable at all. Fails at WP:NOTE too. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - WP:BITE is a behavioral guideline, not a policy. Yes, it is a good guideline, but has no bearing in regards to an AFD vote (although it's fine to be noted). Is your keep vote based only on BITE?Gwynand (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - With due respect to Catchpole's effort for keeping some articles that lacks on many major policies of WP, I want to say, of course WP:BITE is to encourage newcomers but that doesn't mean we'll start keeping low profiles articles. Newcomer may request for an article instead of creating one that doesn't meet WP core policies. And it is really unfortunate to receive your bites at almost each of my nominations in the name of supporting newcomers. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Further Speedy deleting good faith articles within minutes is contray to WP:BITE. Nominating for AfD is not. Also, per Gwynand, could you please elaborate on your Keep rationale? Pedro : Chat 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Her work is on display at the National Portrait Gallery [37] and Museum of London [38] and has been purchased by the UK Government [39]. Her work has been exhibited across 3 continents. [40]. The article requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Linking to notable things that she is/was involved with does not make someone notable. Please produce, independant, 3rd party reviews of her work, or news articles about her. If there are just links to the places her work was shown and her own resume, then she still comes no where near WP:NOTE.Gwynand (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTE. If she is "now considered to be a major voice in modern poetry" as the article suggests, then some secondary sources would come up. There is nothing however, in a few different searches I did, including google news. Gwynand (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now described purely as an artist. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - As an artist, she has exhibited at Victoria & Albert Museum, ICA Gallery, Brooklyn Museum; she's in the collections of MoMA, National Portrait Gallery, Philadelphia Museum, amongst others. Satisfies notability. freshacconcispeaktome 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've re-written and referenced the article, following Catchpole's excellent research. Hunter's most important period seems to be the 1970s and 1980s, and material dating from that time is often not on the internet unfortunately. Her presence in collections shows that she was seen as of note. I've omitted the poetry claim, as I can't find any validity for that. Tyrenius (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User:Feministart, nice work done on this article. Could you please add information on her achievement or invention? This article claims that she invented (with a polite tone as employed) an unusual technique of etching with a chemically modified photographic image. It would be really nice if you can provide a third party reference supporting this point. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not say she invented it (though she may have done - that is not clear in the ref, so is not claimed), only that she employed it. The ref says that she used it. "Employ" is a synonym for "use" simply on stylistic grounds and to minimise use of the original on copyvio grounds. Her use of the technique is already cited in the main text, which the lead summarises. The lead has now been ref'd as well. Tyrenius (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I think it meets WP:BIO now.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Article is sourced, indicates notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Current version satisfies WP:BIO on permanent collections alone. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. - Modernist (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwood High School (Saltville, Virginia)

Stub of non-notable school. The references provided don't demonstrate notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Keep (as contester of PROD). As I noted on the talk page, Google searches (incl. news and books) indicate non-trivial WP:RS coverage for the school, especially as Worthy High. The sources are out there, they need to be secured. High schools tend to be notable and this one has its own history and the natural history of its site going for it. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Look here for a listing of hits in google news under the search "Northwood High School". The school is the primary topic of many of the articles and references in hundreds of others. I'd say that this shows its been the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources and should be kept per WP:note and per complying with one of the primary points of the the proposed guidline of notability for schools. - Gwynand (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Hasn't it been decided that virtually all high schools are notable. RMHED (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Some editors have suggested that, but no, it hasn't been decided. The argument of all inclusion isn't a "just because" argument, but rather related to the notion that all highschools in fact meet wikipedia's threshold of notability, not that they should be the exception to the rule. I didn't strike out your vote, but it should technically be based on actual policy or reason.Gwynand (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Response to Note I think user:Gwynand is referring to the De Facto consensus that high school articles are legitimate articles whereas most elementary or middles are not. As a Member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools I can attest to the persuasiveness of this agreement that holds up at every AfD discussion I have ever observed, formal guideline or no. As such this article should be kept. Zidel333 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - we delete we something isn't sourceable not when, as here, it has plenty of available sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. However, the article has meanwhile been moved to Oroluk Island and then replaced with completely different content including a different map and might be legit. So I'll delete and then restore the latest version only. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frolik Island

Obviously a hoax. The article claims that Frolik Island is an island of the Oroluk Atoll (Fed. States of Micronesia). There are in fact articles in other Wikipedias that claim the same (de, pl, es, ru, fr) but it seems that all these articles were written by the same author. The most detailled of these articles is the one in pl WP: pl:Frolik. There you can find a map of the Oroluk Atoll indicating the alleged precise position of Frolik Island. If you consult Google Earth, you will find a sort of a sand bank or reef there with roughly the same NE/SW orientation as the alleged island on the map but without any vegetation (and of course with no settlements at all). The whole Oroluk atoll has a population of 8 or 10 inhabitants which doesn't match with the almost 100 that are supposed to live on Frolik Island alone. Moreover, the map of the alleged Frolik Island matches perfectly with a mirrorred map of Nanumea Island in Tuvalu, several hundred kilometers away from Oroluk (see the comparison of the images on Talk:Frolik Island. Currently, there is an AfD discussion on de WP stating all these indications for a hoax. pl WP had already an AfD discussion which ended in keep; I suppose the main argument there was the reference of the Statistical Handbook of Micronesia, but on de WP some were supposing that the image of a page from that handbook which is displayed on the talk page of the polish article has been faked, too. --Proofreader (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Proofreader says it all, this is a hoax, no doubt whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious hoax. Nominate the foreign-language ones, as well. The handbook page looks quite realistic, but, looking at it zoomed in in Microsoft Paint, it looks sort of like a fake. The user does appear to be here for purposes other than hoaxes, but this does look like a hoax. If someone provides sources that definitely aren't hoaxes, I may change my vote. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The German article has been deleted today, the article in pl WP has been changed into a redirect to the Oroluk Atoll. There are varying opinions in de WP whether the author deliberately faked the map and the census entry, or whether he just used these sources in good faith; but the probability that these sources provide genuine and accurate information seems to be very low, to put it mildly. And as to the other Wikipedias I want to second Bart; anyone who speaks Spanish, Russian or French should inform these Wikipedias. --Proofreader (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm willing to believe that the creator used them in good faith. Looking at their user page, they seem to have provided several accurate maps and related information. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The French version is up for deletion. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Sorry, but I'm "lost" my passwort, so I must to be "as an IP" ;-) : There is no island namend Frolik in an atoll. Proofreader has found the real map location: Nanumea. I've made therefore an article in the de.WP (see de:Nanumea-Atoll). Zollwurf --84.176.232.210 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of evidence for notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Byte This!

Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the webcast. Prod disputed with the claim that notable things happened on the webcast, which whether that's true or not there need to be reliable third-party sources. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — RoninBK _{T C} 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Weekly part of WWE Programing. Had several notable programs and guests. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reliable sources that attest to the notability of the webcast are...what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Its original research to deem which episodes are "notable" and which are not. If you remove that section, there wont be much left. I'd suggest a merge+redirect Corpx (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - WWE's official website states it is "on hiatus" and therefore still may return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) — 96.233.64.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Once again...RELIABLE SOURCES ARE REQUIRED. Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Let's be WP:CIVIL please. All-caps are often considered shouting, and highly unnecessary. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Apparently a little shouting is necessary, since WP:RS doesn't seem to be getting through using my indoor voice. Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      - If WP:RS is the problem, why is deletion the solution? The article was tagged for additional citations for verification some time in December 2007. Are you that impatient for the citations to be coming through? Considering that there are articles on wikipedia that have been tagged for citations since 2005, I reckon you're being quite hasty with your trigger-happy approach. There are a lot of wrestling related websites on the internet. I'm sure someone somewhere can find some reliable references on the notability of those interview segments. Just give it some time. Keep. --Bardin (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:N are the problems. That some other article may or may not have a reference tag is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        I think it's quite relevant. WWE's official website, which I would call a reliable source, states it is on hiatus. There's no reason for the article itself to be deleted. Should it be cleaned up? Absolutely. It's strange how you're on a crusade to get an article which can easily be cleaned up deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        WWE's official website is not a reliable source for the article because it is not independent of the subject of the article. And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making false accusations about me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        Being a primary source as WWE's offical website is does not mean it is unreliable. Of course secondary sources are prefered, but that does not mean we dismiss everything from the primary source just because it is closely associated with the site. — Save_Us † 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        It does not mean that it is unreliable, but it does mean that Wikipedia has special restrictions as to how it can be used. According to WP:V, primary sources can be used for certain situations, but the Notability guideline requires that secondary sources be used to establish notability. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        Hence why I said "Of course secondary sources are prefered". — Save_Us † 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The point is not whether the show is coming back or not, it is whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. WWE.com is a primary source, so it doesn't prove the notability of the subject matter as much as a third party news source would. I've done a lot of searching in the past couple of days, and I couldn't find one reliable third party source, not even for the whole Lita/Matt Hardy episode, which I was sure would have been covered by someone. Some of the unreliable dirt-sheet type sites mention the web show, but nothing good enough to prove notability. Although, I won't object to future recreation when these issues are addressed. Nikki311 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep--There are several news stories in LexisNexis that cover the Byte This webcasts; also two hits on Google books. Somebody put a lot of work into this page and it is informative and passes the notability test. It needs better cites, not deletion. --Wageless (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The book "Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of ECW" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 229 of a 261-page book."Tommy Dreamer, on an edition of the WWE Internet radio show Byte This, said the Homecoming crew was leaching off ECW's name, which they did not own." The book "World Wrestling Insanity: The Decline And Fall of a Family Empire" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 83 of a 235-page book. "In her fourth-quarter conference call, shortly after Bill's Byte This! appearance, WWE CEO Linda McMahon called Bill a 'disappointment.'" These would be textbook examples of trivial refernces that do not establish notability (see note 3 in particular). I have no access to Lexis-Nexis but if the "sources" are in any way similar to these book "sources" then they do nothing to establish notability either. The WP:EFFORT that someone put into the article is not a valid argument for keeping it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes you're right Otto that all the mainstream press and published book mentions are brief, which is why I noted them here on this page rather than incorporating them into the actual article. I have now included a quote from a press release in Business Wire because it's dated 1998, showing how early the webcast was produced, and I've changed the date in the chart. (I should add that there are other books, e.g., Scott Keith's Wrestling's One Ring Circus and Nicholas Sammond's Steel Chair to the Head--nice title, don't you agree?--that specifically mention Byte This!, as does Vince Russo's memoir Forgiven and Steve Austin's memoir The Stone Cold Truth. All these are to be found on Google books.) The notability of the webcast (called a "netcast" early on) is that it is, judging by these cites, an important source for the history of WWE, and that it was an early and significant milestone in webcasting. The main thing is that these print cites plus the web material lift this piece above the notability hurdle. Also I'm afraid I can't agree with you that the amount of labor someone devotes to an article is to be so casually dismissed in weighing the article's merits--anyone can see that there's a goodly amount of encyclopedic meat here in the "notable episodes" section that would be of interest to a person coming to Wikipedia in order to find out more about about the history of wrestling or webcasts or both. Finally, I have to observe that the Wikipedia essay to which you refer in citing WP:EFFORT offers this word to the wise: "[C]ountering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." ----Wageless (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a question... what would constitute a "reliable source"? This is a pro-wrestling article. It's going to be difficult to go find something from a major publication that would satisfy what Wikipedia considers reliable. I've found a couple of articles that at least bring up the Matt Hardy/Lita situation and the incident with The Heart Throbs. RedSoxFan3458 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting point. WWE has traditionally held the press at arms length, and even the most respectable of pro-wrestling news outlets are often dismissed with the perjorative label of "dirt sheet." Problem is, virtually no one covered these webcasts except for these "dirt sheets". It pains me as a WWE fan, (then again, a lot of things pain me as a WWE fan...) Regardless, WP:Notability is an objective standard to be met. Since WWE is a primary source, it can only establish basic facts about the webcast, and cannot establish its notability. That would therefore mean that unless additional info surfaces soon... (double checks the nomination date...) REALLY soon, the information about specific episodes would have to go, and the rest would logically be merged back into WWE. That, or we have to come up with a determination about these so called "dirt sheets." -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This program was a significant portion of WWE.com's viewing time while it was not on hiatus. Also, it still may return. Clay4president2 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was so significant then there should be reliable sourcesd that discuss it. Are there? No? Oh. The fact that it may return is irrelevant. There still need to be reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, on the subject of reliable sources for a pro-wrestling article, please be objective and give your input on that part of the discussion that you skipped over.96.233.64.12 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)RedSoxFan3458

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stavangerrenaissance

Sounds madeup or a hoax, can't find anything via Google on this cultural period. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Se norwegian wikipedia, and search for Stavangerrenessansen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengre (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/stavanger.html --Hengre (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The title of this article is certainly a neologism in English. It might have been better off leaving the Norwegian untranslated; that would at least clue in readers that this is about Norway. The Norwegian article, no:Stavangerrenessansen, seems to be a passable stub that gives two sources. Norwegian is one of those languages you can sort of understand, if you shout a lot and wave your hands; the older source over there uses the Norwegian language title; and the other one appears to be a reliable article from a magazine about historical conservation. I suspect that this article ought to be merged somewhere: either to Stavanger#History, Stavanger Cathedral, or Gamle Stavanger. See also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartilagebaroque. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - and change title to "Stavanger Renaissance" (the long compound word looks strange to an English eye, which may be what aroused suspicions of a hoax). It's not a hoax (I've taken off the tag) - it's a more or less straight translation of the Norwegian article, and I think it's a reasonable stub, with some possibilities for development. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and move to the Norwegian title. Relata refero (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect; action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cartilagebaroque

No references to prove notability or, in fact, existance. Zero return for google hits suggests WP:HOAX JD554 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a hoax, search for bruskbarokk and you will get several pages on norwegian. I think that I would know this better than you! --Hengre (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you know better than me then you can edit the article to add verifiable references that prove notability to show it should stay. --JD554 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Assuming good faith, I doubt that this is a hoax. The title "Cartilagebaroque", a disconcerting neologism in English, is bound to provoke scepticism. More importantly, it fails to tell us that this is about a Norwegian style of art and architecture. I suspect that both this and the Stavangerrenaissance article, if sourceable, ought to be merged somewhere; either at Stavanger Cathedral or Stavanger#History. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. "bruskbarokk" does bring up a lot more ghits. Unfortunately I don't speak Norwegian so am unable to determine if means cartilagebaroque or not. If the merges can be properly sourced and referenced as you suggest I would be happy to withdraw the AfD. --JD554 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment it's not a hoax - I've taken the tag off. There is a reference in the Norwegian WP here, which gives an external reference. It looks better with the words separated to "Cartilage baroque" - I've done that in the article, but not in the title for fear of confusing the links to this AfD debate. Whether there is enough material for an article is another question - probably better merged as suggested above. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment It seems that you may have forgot to remove the tag, so I removed it see here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I must have failed to save my edit, because I thought I had made other changes, which I have now done, mainly splitting "Cartilagebaroque" into two words. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Stavangerrenaissance is my !vote, assuming that survives, as I hope it will. I have found one reference to this in English (actually for a 1639 pulpit at Kalvehave in Denmark) but I don't think there's really enough for a separate article. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge as above. As long as the above mentioned citation goes with it. --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, as the concerns were resolved. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Girls in Training

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is it's own site. There are many church groups out there, this is not a notable one. This has also been orphaned for almost 2 years. Undeath (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. There is no indication as to its magnitude or wide-spread acceptance or notability. Racepacket (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep While the article as it stands doesn't support notability, I believe that it is notable and it could be improved to meet standards. A quick Google search provides additional information that could be included and referenced, including from the Canadian Encyclopedia and at least a couple of books. Content could also be added to the articles on the supporting organizations - the United and Presbyterian churches in Canada - that would eliminate its orphan status. I'll try to take a crack at improving it. Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to assert notability. Believing that it is notable and being notable are two different things. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear; I should have said that by improving the article, it would demonstrate notability. I've done some work on it, including:

adding more information
wikifying it, so that it is not a dead-end
adding a references section, including a link to the topic's article in The Canadian Encyclopedia
linking to the article from other pages that already referenced the subject, so that it is no longer orphaned
adding further external links

Hoping that enough has been done to take another look. Mlaffs (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep More than adequately sourced. I beleive that sourcing, rather than notability, was the real issue, and that has been rectified. Played a significant role in Canadian society in its time. Agent 86 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it contains plenty of sources; they just need to be made into inline citations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of poland

Wikipedia is not Commons - we are encyclopedia, not a gallery -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as having no content whatsoever, A3.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boothe

Possible hoax future video game. No references that substantiate the existence of the game or any supposed "public outcry". Googling combinations of Boothe, game, and assassination, gets no relevant results, googling "Murphy Games" gets no relevant results. And anyway, WP not a crystal ball. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Google turns up nothing, almost certainly a hoax. If it's supposedly named after John Wilkes Booth, why is it spelled differently? faithless (^speak) 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be a hoax, given the misspelling, the unlikely-looking box art, and the lack of sources regarding a supposedly controversial game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete vain vanity in vain. Provided links are about JFK Reloaded, and supposed "box art" is an atrocious Photoshop hackbox. Throw this junk out. JuJube (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Someone another 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Morbuzakh

AfDs for this article:

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional plant monster. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete agree with nom: this article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, which are not presented in this article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhotuka

Non-notable objects in the fictional bionicle universe. There is some minor real world context here but it's all original research that really should be in the bionicle article if anyone ever decides to rewrite all this from areal world perspective of these beiong a collectible toy line. Ridernyc (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. True that there are sources from bionicle book, but they are primary source which is not reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As with the other nomination, this article fails to establish coverage as defined by WP:N. SorryGuy Talk 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures

I made a Good faith attempt to try to find any secondary sources that even mention "L. Ron Hubbard" and "Classic Lectures". I looked in 2 different news archives, and Google Books, and found nothing. Even with a regular Google search, I'm only seeing 344 hits, some of which are copies of Wikipedia. The majority of the other hits are to Church of Scientology affiliated websites of one sort or another. After this searching, I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever in any secondary sources that discuss the subject of this article. The only source cited in the article itself at present is to what seems to be an advertisement for the works sold by the Church of Scientology's Golden Era Productions. (The link itself is inaccessible at the moment.) Cirt (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard as it's a plausible (albeit unlikely) search. No independent notability. faithless (^speak) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard, see no real reason why the collection should have an article of its own. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I think a better test of notability in this instance would be the test for books, i.e. WP:BK. Much of Hubbard's work is not in books but in his taped lectures. The notability guideline does include an applicable exception that would apply here:
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources."
That can clearly apply here. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um, yea, but no. See comments by the above users, re: "No independent notability." Hubbard has written lots of stuff, both science-fiction, and well, other things. Not all of it is notable, and the true test of that is whether one can find any reference at all to a work in any secondary sources that are not Hubbard's own work and not affiliated with Church of Scientology organizations. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - But you are totally ignoring the point I make. No secondary sources are needed. ps, Cirt, please do me a favor - do you have any other open AfDs? Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion that everything written by Hubbard is notable, as do other editors, above. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Golly. That is pretty final. I just made an argument for keep - no big deal. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not have any other open AfDs. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI in the future please see either WP:SCN's talk page, or WP:SCN/AFD. I usually try to remember to give due notice in both places. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Doesn't seem to exist per nominator, hence, not notable. Also, the title is unlikely to yield in search results, if any at all, very few. So no redirect is needed. And if we suppose this existed, does it really warrant an article to write about a certain compendium of some of his literature? I think not. And I disagree with that being applied here. While certainly some of Hubbard's literature is notable, this is not a specific book. So it's not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I get your point. Of course the series exists and you can just Google the term "L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures" to verify that. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - All right, it seems to exist.[41] Question remains then: is this notable enough to warrant an article? Has it been sold in large numbers, exposed to heavy media coverage, or anything of the kind? Is it not better to include this in a generic article covering Hubbard's work? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Based on the web site for the series [42] it's just a repackaging, and they do not use the title of the article in any case. DGG (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Right now it reads like an advertisement, and states that "his lectures are now avalible"...but it really dosn't give any context outside of the fact that they exist. What was the impact of this spacific collection (not the lectures themselves, but this package). its kinda like making a seperate link for "diskworld by terry prattchet, the United states publications 1996 covers". oops, forgot to signCoffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, how could I forget to mention that? A new title is released each month, and can be subscribed to like a record club, with subscribers receiving a special CD unavailable elsewhere entitled Org Board and Livingness. — Sounds very much like an advertisement indeed. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not said why. Why do you think this article satisfies WP:NOTE? The Closing Admin usually is supposed to ignore comments which simply read like a "vote"... Cirt (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a why. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion, concerning a failure to establish notability through the provision of reliable sources, are clear in this discussion: such sources are not provided. Anthøny 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas O'Grady

AfDs for this article:

Already deleted once and again created. Nominating it for Deletion as it looks like a political add. It fails at WP:BIO as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. He is the mayor of a small town, and is a candidate to become a candidate for Congress. This doesn't meet WP:BIO. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps salt if this article is deleted again with no opposition I suppose that might be a little extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the page per the request above from Niaz.--Avfwiki (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. No sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added references as requested.--Avfwiki (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Wow, you all think 34,000 people is a little town? I'm a bit surprised by your demands here. Greswik (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Number of people doesn't play an important role while deciding someone's notability. In South Asia, 34,000 people may live in an avenue. Should we start creating articles on political leaders of those localities? -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:BIO: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" Rsazevedo ^msg 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Jeepers. Notable per wp:n, significant as Kucinich opponent, constellation of news mentions in Lexis/Nexis.--Wageless (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, ample precedent on small-town mayors. Noble Sponge (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Coverage by reliable third party sources is cited in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

John Hagen

Once again, minor recurring character on CSI: Miami who is now dead on the show. Article is only a synopsis of major plot lines he was involved in. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect and thanks a ton for the spoiler, Redfarmer. Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Duetwo

This article was tagged for speedy. A general check reveals some notability of the duo so whilst article needs attention it appears this article could meet WP:N. Views are sought from interested music/Japanese editors. --VS ^talk 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Googling suggests a degree of notability, however, further referencing would assist the resolution of this matter. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep; the group is notable but that article will need some cleanup. Chubbles (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Agreeing with WWGB, further referencing would be extremely welcome. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This group are well known in Japan and occasionally perform abroad. There seems to have been some editing to improve it and keep to the facts. Ongaku-ya ^msg 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Elizalde

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Marisol Delko

Non-notable recurring character in CSI: Miami. Appeared sporadically for one season as a love interest to Horatio who was killed off immediately after they were married, so little to no chance she'll ever be back. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to minor characters per what just occurred with Peyton Driscoll Travellingcari (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect as happened with/is happening with Michael Keppler.Red Fiona (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mud Bite

Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete according to a Google search[43], "mud bite" is a fishing term. I could find no references supporting the definition given. -Verdatum (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. Article is not properly sourced, and references to it in Google are very sparse. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bango (cannabis)

Article makes no claims of notability.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The way I see it, the notability of a type of cannabis has to be approached in a different way as from, say, a biographical article. The fact that it's used in more than one country is something of a claim to notability. Googling for the phrase, I found several sources that looked reliable discussing this. Maybe it could be merged somewhere - it really needs attention from an expert on the subject - but certainly not an outright delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
According to this Google books search, the term appears to be notably used. However, "Bango (cannabis)" is an implausible search term, so a redirect is not at all useful. User:Dorftrottel 13:21, January 29, 2008
- Nice find on the books search, I've added an {{expert}} template. It is an implausible search term, but Bango is a dab page. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Wrt redir: I meant that redirecting would not be useful. Still not sure whether anything on bango shouldn't better be merged into Cannabis (drug). User:Dorftrottel 16:54, January 29, 2008
Keep. Also found sources establishing its reliability. Article should be expanded though. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
KeepCould possibly be merged into a page such as "Glossary of cannabis terms" or "Types of Cannabis plant". Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 30 January 2008 (GMT).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Valera

Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Although she has been on the show for years, the article admits there is little to know about her and is basically just a recap of major plot lines she's been involved in. Fails WP: FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

support. Editus Reloaded (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Elliott (CSI: Miami)

Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Little chance to be expanded beyond current form, which is just a recap of his appearances on the show. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami if it is good enough for Michael Keppler it should be good enough for this character --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to minor characters per what just occurred with Peyton Driscoll Travellingcari (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as wholly unreferenced w/o evidence of notability. Do not support merge save for into the apropos episodes in which this character appears, provided they themselves meet muster. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris Cowan-Hall

Player has not made an appearance in a professional football league Jimbo^[online] 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails [{WP:BIO]] as Number 57 says. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if ever does do so, the article can be restored. King of the North East 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Keppler

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 January 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. Fram (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation

Article was posted for speedy deletion as being about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Article does not appear to meet verifiability guidelines --VS ^talk 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The sources look a bit obscure and a Google search of 'Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation' comes up with no references for this organisation [44] --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No coverage for this "event" ? Corpx (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Corpx, I have added coverage of the event from the United Nations, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Washington Post, and the Christian Post. I will add more. User:Paulalexander

Comment Those references make no mention of 'Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuetral and Comment The titles of the references provided do not need to mention the name of this compact. Nick, were you able to read the full articles to determine if they are inappropriate references? A title search of Tikkun does show that that reference exists. I can't read the article because I do not subscribe to Tikkun; nonetheless, my lack of access to the magazine does not make the reference invalid. Unless it can be shown that the references are spurious, I'm going to assume good faith and suggest that they are not. However, I'm not sure that the two refs provided are enough to establish more than borderline notability, and I do think that the article can use some cleanup to get it beyond the state of appearing to be an advertising platform for ENSTIC.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind; I was looking at the reflist, not the reflinks imbedded in the article. I also see that the two reflist articles and ENSTIC were authored by the same person. The imbedded references seem to point to the National Association of Evangelicals not the ENSTIC. Delete (possibly merging some information with NAE) until some concrete mention of ENSTIC turns up.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

King & Wood

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King & Wood

It does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. It has been speedy deleted twice, so I bring it up here for good. It has now some sources, they still do not meet the guidelines. The link to CNN interview of Art of Life is a trivial mentioning of the company. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete Only reason I would see to keep would be that they're the largest in China, but if that's unsubstantiated, then delete. Corpx (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This company is stated to be the largest law firm in China... the largest country in the world. The PetroChina deal they worked on was also record breaking. I think its important enough. InAnns (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
— InAnns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I think this is notable enough, the company's work has clearly had an economic impact. The Beijing olympic are a catalyst for social change in China, the company is playing a role in it. Icerman (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
— Icerman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - I found something wrong in the article. The editor forgot to put {{reflist}} or <references/> command. I put it there so references are shown up now. However, all links that can be verified there describe PetroChina, not the subject in question. Therefore I still stand by my delete opinion though references are now provided. Dekisugi (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I went ahead and did some searching but could not find any reliable or significant coverage of this firm and as such feel that it fails WP:CORP. SorryGuy Talk 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Promotional article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Thank you all for your advice on how I can improve the entry I made. As a first time writer on Wikipedia I am trying to learn what makes a good post. I have made (what I feel) are some improvements, and would appreciate your feedback. Any suggestion of how it can be improved are much appreciated.
Comment The firm's real name is actually King & Wood PRC LAWYERS. A google search of such shows reveals a lot of information. dunx209 11:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
— dunx209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.90 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. I found something is strange with the keep voters. I suspect they are the same user (sockpuppets). The last comment given by InAnn a.k.a dunx209 was written by ChinaLaw, see [45]. Dekisugi (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this keep vote from a user because it broke the template, but for what it's worth, that vote was their only contribution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of sports similar to baseball

Unreferenced list of things someone thinks are related to some other thing, also mixes real and fictioonal. WP:NOT#INFO. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, too loosely defined. If a person wanted to, they could theoretically justify the inclusion of any sport on this list which used a ball as being "similar" to baseball. It has the potential to be a dumping ground for OR. Redfarmer (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT -Ravichandar 11:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Too loosely defined, and it's mostly original research to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Violates WP:NOR at the very least and arguably other policies as well.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge into the see also section of baseball, though delete would be fine as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete violates WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. What criteria determined which sports are "similar" to baseball? Rsazevedo ^msg 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Wikify per below. This can be sourced and improved, but it would take some time. Not that the topic isn't encyclopedic-- the Oxford University Press did a reference book on the sports of the world, and all these are on there-- (classified as "bat and ball games", except for kickball) but this is one of those useless "indiscriminate lists" with nothing but blue-links. While a detailed explanation, of how rounders and baseball compare and contrast, is too much information for an article, a few sentences wouldn't hurt. This one grounds out. Mandsford (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:Appears to be WP:OR. The Phrase "similar to baseball" itself is loosely defined and personal opinion. There may be people who may feel that it is not so. -Ravichandar 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing administrator. If the consensus is delete, please move it to my user space. I don't have time to provide any references right now but may consider working on this in the future. (I am the creator of this article but not the sole author). —siro χ o 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashfield (webcomic)

This article was originally submitted for CSD. There's enough information and sources that I was uncomfortable deleting it without an AfD. A search of the substantial number of Ghits I found gave me a lot of background information but no assertion of notability. Trusilver 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. The article doesn't assert notability in any way, and the best I could find was a passing mention in a salon.com piece on webcomics, and the fact that it was nominated (but didn't win) a 2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Award for "Best Gag Comic" -- and those are cartoonist nominated and voted awards, at that. Jfire (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete for its non-notability. Had a hard time finding any related info on Google. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Emacs commands

WP:NOT#MANUAL. A handful commands of thousands. Contested prod. Saber^Excalibur! 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. Achromatic (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I was going to link to WP:NOT#HOWTO but nom already beat me to it :( Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and other comments that WP is not a manual book. Suggest: move to wikisource. Dekisugi (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
C-z Nothing that needs to be in an encyclopedia... -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. -Verdatum (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete everyone here has the same justification, for good reason. -Verdatum (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I realize wikipedia is not a manual. However, as the nominator said, this is a handful of commands out of thousands. Thus it does not fit the description of a manual, nor an indiscriminate list. It is a helpful and useful page, which is why I created it. Perhaps it should be merged with emacs? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's indescriminate because it doesn't say which commands should be in this list and which should not. Therefore, with other contributors, this list could become complete; thousands of commands, serving no benefit, as the information is already found on other, more appropriate locations. The external links listed in the emacs article for example, are particularly good...including an emacs wiki :) -Verdatum (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not an encyclopedia article and no potential to become one. --Stormie (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Considerable efforts have been spent on rewriting the article to make it less biased; unfortunately, the issue raised by the AfD nominator – non-notability – has not been addressed, i.e no evidence was given by "keep" voters to establish the notability of the subject. External links existing in the article are either primary or closely affiliated websites. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plug board (internet)

Concerns have been raised via e-mail to the Foundation that the subject of this article may not concern a notable subject and that it constitutes an advertisement. Please remember to give justification and not just a "vote". Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Has WP:SPAM written all over it. Not enough third-party sources, the only external link is to the company itself. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Article has been re-written to give a less biased view. External links to other websites offering different plugboard scripts, as well as to plugsites have also been added. Like other articles it informs new users to its capabilities, as well as correct etiquette on how to use it. Chrisdb89^msg 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've seen it used in many places and while obviously the main use of the script is for advertising, the article itself (in its current form) does not resemble an advertisement. Notable enough to keep. Kixy (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan

Future plans, see WP:CRYSTAL. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Moved to AfD for a closer look after turning down a CSD request --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Future blockbuster attributed, but lacks sources and just about everything else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Strong Keep~~ - It seems this project has been confirmed and discussed in the news ([46] [47] [48] [49]), which means the speculation is verifiable and thus doesn't qualify as WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, the stars are clearly notable, to the point where they have their own (well-sourced) articles, which means this is not exactly a small independent film. The article is poorly written in its current state, but that's not a good reason to push for deletion. --jonny-mt 07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I didn't realize that WP:MOVIE contains an explicit clause relating to future films. I wasn't able to find any sources indicating that filming has begun (the closest I found was a couple of blogs mentioning Augst 2008 as the start of filming), so it fails WP:NFF after all. However, I stand by my comments about the article not being a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (which is defined as unverifiable speculation), and agree with the suggestions that the existing content be merged to either the director's article or the male lead's article. After all, the latter was stopped in an airport because his name is Khan. --jonny-mt 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Reluctant Delete I was just as clueless about the letter of the law at WP:NFF. It seems to me to be against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, since the claims are quite verifiable, but I can live with the consensus. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per jonny-mt but cleanup. I've added some clean-up tags to the article to assist. Redfarmer (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete In its current state, the article reads as a publicist's promotional blurb. Perhaps it was moved to Afd too soon, but as it stands, it definitely needs sourcing and cites. Maybe it could be put back and fixed? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
~~FIXED~~ Taken the links provided by jonny-mt, and used those to create a sourced, wikified, and npov stub. Editors, please revisit your !votes -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Just because a project is covered does not mean it is at all guaranteed to be a full-fledged film article. I suggest mentioning the project on the director's article until filming actually begins, where there would be actual film-based content such as production, release, box office performance, critical reaction, accolades, etc. As it stands, the project has not crossed the threshold into having a future with these details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Any verifiable information should be placed at the director's article. The film article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge When this article first appeared on the new pages list, I sd tagged it; Shira, sensing some potential in it, moved it here. As it stands, the article has been improved significantly and now includes references, context, and notability. However, as several others have remarked, it still flies in the face of WP:Crystal. Why not temporarily merge it with the director's article as suggested? Its current improved state would be a fine addition to that article, and it can easily be moved into real article status once the movie goes public and generates press reviews to support it further. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NFF is completely clear - the article should not exist until a reliable source confirms that the production has already started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Could be moved to the director's page in the meantime. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - ARS tagging won't help, the film hasn't started production yet. See WP:NFF, and re-create if production commences. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to newly-created category Category:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance. Added this category to appropriate entries that were on this list. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of nonviolence scholars and leaders

As is, with only wikilinks and a couple sections, this would be much better as a category. Mr.Z-man 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Keep: Without any references it could be regarded as WP:OR. The article need not be replaced with a category. There are lists by communities, affiliations,etc. But the article needs to be bettered if at all it is to be kept. -Ravichandar 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Replaced with a category, agreeing with Mr.Z-man. As it is, it could serve its purpose in the same way (or even better) as a category. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Categorise and Delete - a category would be a better way to link the information together. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Holistic Information Security Practitioner

NN security certification, with no references, with one press release press hit in the entire NEWS.GOOGLE.COM archive --- "certification" in this case provided by an NN security consultancy in Georgia. --- tqbf 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep or refactor - It seems that this certification is indeed real and is drawing a bit of attention in the U.K. While I'm not exactly prepared to say that this article should absolutely be kept based on this one news piece alone, I might argue that it would better served as an article on "holistic information security", for which there are plenty of sources. --jonny-m t 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep but move and add refs. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and add refs. Per User:jonny-mt, the certification is growing and has been picked up by well-known organizations such as the British Standards Institute. (COI disclaimer: I started the article, and hold the certification myself). --mariusstrom 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arto Tukio

not notable, no sources, very little editing activity, very few mainspace pages link to it Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as athlete in premier league per WP:BIO (see additional criteria "Athletes".) Article still needs references but presume notability per guideline. Might have been better to use a notability tag to prompt editors to reference the subject? Premier League athletes shouldn't be coming to AfD. Note that the prod was declined. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the subject is notable, the article still has the other issues I raised. Unless this AfD inspires someone to source and expand it, this will be a one line article forever that serves no informative purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the issue of no references remains. I'm confident that as this athlete is a premier league player that sources will be available. Trouble is they are most likely to be found in the media of Finland. Much easier for us here if the athlete is in an English language country. The subject is no less notable for being where he is though. If you'd put up a Canadian premier league ice hockey player the refs would be on the article by now. The five days for an AfD to run its course doesn't give a lot of time to find suitable WP:RS in these cases, but it's obvious to me the athlete is notable even without the refs being there yet. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor from Finland can cite local sources? The problem therein being unless they see this AfD in the five day period, how do they know about it? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that raises my other concerns: the article has been here since August 2006 with no improvement or expansion. Few mainspace articles link to it. There have been 17+ months for some editor to come along and introduce a SINGLE source of which this person is the subject, and it hasn't happened. So, really, it's not as if the article was created today and I nominated it for deletion, leaving only five days to find a source. There has never been a source. I also want to point out that the "major professional league" mention in WP:BIO is just one of a set of criteria that suggest that the subject might be significant enough to have an article. Regarding these criteria, the guideline takes care to say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Considering that the only argument in favor of having this article is that the subject of it meets one of those criteria, it seems to me to be a strong case for deletion. Croctotheface (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per String au's comments above, possibly WP:SNOW as bad nomination. Lack of sourcing and orphaned articles are not criteria for deletion. That's a cleanup issue. Redfarmer (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should note, too, the Finish version of the article quotes sources, so I agree that sources do indeed exist. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone speak Finnish in order to find the right references?Red Fiona (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep professional athlete. --Krm500 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep meets WP:BIO guidelines as a professional athlete. If you have a problem with the article either tag it or fix it yourself. Don't afd it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just close as keep. I'm the nominator, and though I disagree with just about everything that everyone else has said here, there's no way there can be a consensus for deleting the article. It's not worth keeping the discussion open. I would be very surprised if this article ever expands beyond what is there now and succeeds in informing people about anything, but that is irrelevant, apparently, to this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Schizodactyly

article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and ghits are more of the same Travellingcari (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. --mariusstrom 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge into hand or add refs to make encyclopedic. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki if not already on Wiktionary, otherwise delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:WINAD Rsazevedo ^msg 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki per Redfarmer RogueNinja_talk 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosary of the Unborn

This has been speedy deleted three times now. This creation was a contested prod. I'm going to remain neutral as to this AfD. I'm not convinced this prayer or chain of beads or whatever is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I just think it needs discussion.

There is an actual product, the Rosary of the Unborn (TM) sold at [50]. I'm not sure if this article is supposed to be referring to that product or not.
It appears to be common to say a prayer for the "unborn". Ghits at [51]. I'm not sure if it's a specific prayer or if it's just a common practice to pray to end abortion or what. The number of GHits is rather small, suggesting this isn't notable.

eaolson (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*DeleteThere does not seem to be enough information to merge with Rosary, it does not appear to be advertising per sources, but it seems to be very minor & probably not worthy of mention, but that isn't my decision. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the article, provided sourcing and made into what I think, is a workable stub - Keep. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. not notable enough for its own article, perhaps worth a passing mention in Rosary if a reference can be found - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still do not believe the "workable stub" is appropriate. There are two sources: a self-published webpage which seems like a glorified product promotion. I'm not convinced that one brief mention in a book about abortion in Spain establishes notability. Besides, it seems to me that many google hits are just referencing not a phrase "Rosary of the Unborn" but describing something else in lowercase letters "rosary of the unborn..." This would be similar to having article on Rosary of the Blessed Virgin and Rosary for the Church in need and Rosary for the family. These are all common things that a rosary can be prayed for, but that does not mean we need an article on each one. This specific topic is a bit confusing because we need to be careful not to mix a product/promotional website with a phrase that isn't referring to that website. Regardless, both usages are not notable. Perhaps a section in the main rosary article could work.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge into an appropriate article. This article is not about a product, even if there is a product with the same name. It's about a religious practice. Fg2 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced substub. May be worth a brief mention in Rosary. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I had added three sources when removing the deletion proposal. Then the user who had initially proposed deletion removed the sources and proposed deletion a second time. I have added the sources again, together with an appropriate stub template. Fg2 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I just can't find a non-trivial reference other than the commercial site (and there, it's unclear whether they are referring to their particular product or the religious practice). Cancel this vote if one gets added, I believe it may be notable but just don't see the evidence. Rigadoun (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
comment: the search term "Rosary for the Unborn" gives twice as many hits on google as the current name does. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding: also google news, where the three stories are all specifically about this devotion. And 1 hit on google ~~scholar~~ books that I've just added as a source to the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Per Andrew c above, the book reference you added just seems to be talking about the rosary as a general prayer said for a reason, not a particular and specific thing. People say rosaries for all sorts of reasons, but each one doesn't need an article. eaolson (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article seems to be just a backdoor into the Rosary article for a commercial website that sells rosaries. The website makes unfounded claims about the spiritual power of the rosary it sells. The website had been directly linked from the Rosary article at least four times and subsequently reverted. Roesser (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article is not meant to advertise, only explain a popular devotion. I started the page and I am in no way associated with the company. It is meant to explain a devotion growing in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConceptLife (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC) — ConceptLife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This article is describing a practice benficial to most Catholics. Leave it alone, there are many pages describing products on Wikipedia, why do you care about deleting this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.248.227 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

— 76.98.248.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Sufficiently important in "pro-life" settings, and frequently mentioned in Catholic publications.DGG (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly clear, to what Catholic publications are you referring? And are you talking about the product "Rosary of the Unborn" or about a rosary prayer said for the unborn. If it is the latter, would you support articles for the Rosary for the family, Rosary for the dead, Rosary for the Church etc? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - 14:10, 29 January 2008 Orangemike deleted "Global Community One World Unity Army" ‎(CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context) - Non admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Global Community One World Unity Army

No idea what this article refers to. Prod tag expired but modified twice. Possible CSD candidate. Dchall1 (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as Apocalypsecruft. It's a reference to the Left Behind series of novels. Probably not notable outside the fictional world. eaolson (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No idea what this is without the above explanation, and even so, it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable, in-universe fictional reference. Mh29255 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per eaolson. Maxa megalon 2000 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Snowball delete, could be a speedy A1. Short, no context to the reader. I'll be WP:BOLD and just tag it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor (actress)

Autobiographical article about a nonnotable actress to promote themselves on Wikipedia. User originally replaced disambiguation page with their own article, but it was moved to its current position, where the same user has been, along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. No notable roles and nothing in article asserts any other notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Kelly Taylor (Actress). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Only acting parts are very small bit parts, falls way short of notability for actors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I speak as an actor, supporting another actor who was a lead in a film in which I myself had only a small supporting role. I never actually met her as we were never in a scene together and we each shot on different days, but I do know of her works. I say this right up front so other editors may look at the article's history and judge for themselves. Question my neutrality if you wish, but the truth of this article's edits is there for any to see. Contrary to the claim that only she and a sockpuppet were editing this particular article (please check the history), the current version sent to Afd was an edit put up by experienced wiki editor user:Hqb. It was then improved by numerous editors, such as User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse among others. The few small edits done by the 2 editors later blocked as being sockpuppets (in a different disagreement with the nominating editor) met all criteria for article improvement and were entirely within the proper Wiki scope of improving an article... despite the later blocking. But one can not discount works of the several other editors who had continued to improve the article and who themselves have a long and successful history of improvements to Wiki. The nominating editor makes no mention of them or their beneficial contributions. I do. The current article's version history shows that 1) Miss Taylor has herself made made no edits to it for some 9 months, and 2) User: Hqb, User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse all felt the article and actress had enough notability to continue editing. I ask other editors to carefully examine this article's history, and the history of those editors who have made additions and deletions, to carefully judge the merit and reasons for the additions and deletions, and so decide for themselves if this article might stay. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because other editors cleaned up the article doesn't necessarily mean that they endorse it or its contents. I once created a page on a punk rock band because one of their albums had been listed at AfD (general consensus is that if a band is notable, then so are their albums) -- and personally, I'd rather stick a knife in my ear than listen to punk rock. I'm sure that your comments are in good faith; however, I would suggest you read WP:N first, as it clearly delineates the criteria for notability, which this actress seems to fail. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt either is, or has employed, to write his own biography article. I wouldn't put too much stock in his response. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps put stock in this: I have no problem supporting any AfD made by this nominator if made in true good faith and for the right reasons. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Khan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Evans (actor)). It is conterproductive to include specious arguments simply to attempt to sway support. A claim of non-notability was fine all by itself. Anything else simply clouds the issue (no pun intended). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

L.L.King is a publicist. L.L.King has many clients. I am not L.L.King. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiring a publicist to write an article for you is a violation of WP:MEAT. It is also a (likely) violation of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV. I would therefore propose that this article (and all others written by King as publicity pieces) be deleted under that critiera. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Living in the real world, actors have publicists. L.L.King was not directed to write an article about me for Wikipedia, nor to my knowledge was he instructed to write about anyone or anything here on Wikipedia. No actor has the time to micro-manage the work of others, and I only became aware of last month's events after receiving numerous emails telling me. Making any claim that King was directed by me to target Wikipedia, is an incorrect allegation. Being in the real world, he was simply doing his job. He was not instructed how or where to do it. That he or his employees decided to edit on Wikipedia was their own choice. That argument has been settled. Coming back to it time after time after time after time is beating a horse long dead. I concur with the nominating editor that King edits be scutinized carefully and that such edits themselves be considered for removal if found untrue, unsupported, or in any way damaging to Wikipedia. I disagree that an entire article about anyone or anything should entirely be removed simply because of inappropriate edits. If removing an entire article simply because of inappropriate edits were to be policy, Wikipedia would be a very empty place. Judge the edits on thir own merits... as certainly, and despite WP:NPOV and WP:COI, if an editor did not have some sort of interest in an article, they would not feel inclined to make it better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article about actress Taylor may indeed fail WP:N. Let that be the determinating factor here. All I ask is that editors review the history and not take the nominator's repeated misdirections as fact. In the nomination, the nominator makes the blatantly incorrect and misleading statement that Kelly Taylor was "along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. The article's history shows many other editors have made significant contributions. The nominator made misleading statements to imply that the article currently in AfD was entirely autobiographical in nature and written by actress Taylor. Article history shows that not only has Taylor ignored this article for over 9 months, it has been quite thourougly re-written by others not associated with Taylor. The nominator has a well demonstrated habit of first de-constructing an article to make it non-notable (as was done in this case), and then nominating the article for deletion for being non-notable. All the nominator need have done was place the original article in Afd as being non-notable and then step back. If the AfD succeeds or fails, fine... there was no need for this continued habit of mis-direction and half truths. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the mentioned editor is being misleading in his comments. Additionally, that someone was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet does not mean all of their articles should be deleted. CC knows this is not the same person and it has already been addressed. I have no idea why it needed to be brought up here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned above, I would like to clarify for the record that I did not create the original version of this article, nor did I approve of its contents; I merely moved it here from Kellytaylor777's inappropriate edit to the dab page, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. At the time, the article was a straight publicity piece, and I immediately tagged it as such. Later, the worst neutrality violations were cleaned up (by myself and others), but the notability issue remains: at least according to Google, the subject of the article has received virtually no independent coverage in reliable sources, and does not otherwise appear to satisfy the criteria in WP:BIO#Entertainers. Unless someone can address those concerns in the very near future, I can't see any strong reason to keep the article. Hqb (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that I misunderstood your part in the article in question. I mentioned you and the others who had improved the article only to refute a blatant allegation that the article was edited only by Kelly Taylor and sockpuppets. I agree that if found non-notable by consensus that the article should be removed, but disagree with de-constructing an article to make it non-notable prior to nominating it as non-notable, or in making false statements in order to sway support.. as both these methods can be themselves interpreted as being self-serving and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Exclusively small parts. Fails notability criteria, at least for the moment. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I concur that this article fails WP:N — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No main roles in any mainstream movies + lack of significant coverage Corpx (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Either the band is notable in itself or it is not; affiliation with other (notable) bands makes no difference, unless it is well-documented. As of now no third-party source has been found. Note that the deletion includes band's members and the album.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19, there were concerns about a third party source presented here and not taken fully into account during the discussion. Consensus was to restore the band article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Allele (band)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Only claim to notability is that they have a song that gets played when you play a video game, nothing else, does not meet WP:MUSIC, I would suggest rolling into this afd Andy Toole, Lane Maverick & Giancarlo Autenzio, who's only claim to notability is that they are members of this non-notable band. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they don't pass WP:MUSIC: --mariusstrom 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am also procedurally listing another related article (isn't this fun?): Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Also recommend strong delete of the individual band members pages as well. --mariusstrom 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Obviously non-notable band. Seems logical that the band members therefore are not notable either, so delete those pages, too. --Crusio (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:MUSIC per association with former member of Cold and from touring with successful bands. Catchpole (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MUSIC a redirect to the notable band is appropriate in cases like that. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So I take it that your ~~vote~~ recommendation is "redirect", not "keep"? --Crusio (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. It doesn't matter if he says "redirect" or "keep". The closing admin can clearly see what the editor is advocating -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep, contains two members of other notable bands. Their only album was on an apparently notable label, so I'm sure there's something somewhere about this band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums released with a major label. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Actually, their label is pushing the definition of notable as well. Dchall1 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Punishment Records isn't notable, i will nom next up. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to fulfill WP:BAND criteria. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment—There appears to be at least a little independent third-party coverage. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; the article is sourced now. Sandstein (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Concert Ten

Delete Non notable concert per WP:NMG. Cannot find reliable source to substantiate notability claims. Veritas (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Please disregard this nomination. Viriditas is a disruptive wikipedian and is merely engaging in aggravated harrassment towards me by going around Wikipedia using my username, searching out articles that I have written or added to, and nominating them for deletion, just for spite, in some sort of major edit war. He has disrupted the entire Hippie article for over a year by engaging in edit wars with at least a dozen people, basically commandeered the article so nobody else can edit it, and I have made mention of this fact is several talk pages. His answer to this is to search out my writings to have them deleted. In my opinion, Viriditas is a disruptive editor and needs to have his use of Wikipedia curtailed. What he is doing now is an act of Wiki-terrorism.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep now that some sources have begun to turn up. May be useful to redirect to a general "rock festivals" page in the near future if it can't be expanded past Start-Class.(this comment was added 01:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC))~~Delete~~ I am not Veritas, but I support deleting the article if WP:RS cannot be found. Morgan, can you look through the archives of the Pocono, Pennsylvania newspapers to see if you can find anything? As it stands, the article does not meet the basic requirements of WP:NMG. —Viriditas | Talk 05:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I also would like to state my belief that Viriditas and Veritas are two accounts being used by the same person. I got an email from Viriditas that the Concert 10 article was in question, and that he was nominating it for deletion. This is an extremely obscure article that is almost never visited. Then when I see the nomination for deletion, it was by Veritas. Many times I have seen these two accounts being used in tandem, and much too often for it to be a coincidence. It is clear that these are two sock puppets of the same person, who has not even given his real name. I would like the powers that be, to investigate these two accounts to make sure they are not sock puppets of the same disruptive individual.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. To the best of my knowledge, I have not sent you any e-mails. —Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Please stop making that accusation per WP:AGF or request a sock check at WP:SUSPSOCK--Veritas (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Prior to this nom, I asked WikiProjct Rock Music to look into this topic. I will now notify the project about the deletion request. —Viriditas | Talk 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No sources to prove that this event ever actually took place. Without that, it doesn't matter who the other two people here are. DarkAudit (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There are two sources that I've found for the event: 1) Someone who runs or has access to the "Hyzer Creek Disc Golf Course" in Saratoga Springs, New York, scanned a photo of the flyer and uploaded it to their personal website:[52] 2) the New York Public Library "Inventory of Clipping Files (Subjects), [ca. 1895- ]" has a folder containing documents about the event in their possession:[53] However, the web entry does not have any detailed information except for the following accession data: "Concert Ten (festival) 1 folder Used for: Poconos Rock Festival". The NYPL website says that the folder contains "clippings from newspapers, magazines and other ephemeral items, documenting all aspects of music." I am under the impression that the creator of the article lives in that area. I would ask that he visit the Music Division at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at 40 Lincoln Center Plaza and make an appointment to access the folder. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Here is a convincing source to prove that it took place. I added this reference to the article and the person who calls himself Veritas and Viriditas deleted the reference.[54] I think it should be clear from this that the person and his two sock puppets are engagin in edit wars and should be blocked from Wikipedia.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
'Keep a festival at Mount Pocono is mentioned in the Rolling Stones Encyclopedia of Rock n Roll. The book Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger lists them as playing at Mount Pocono on 8 July 1972. Catchpole (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we've already established that the concert took place, but does the source you reference support the text in the current article? What is notable about this concert? Should we have articles on every concert? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - If a six figure attendance can be confirmed then that looks like a reasonable indication of notability to me. Otherwise possibilites are to redirect to Pocono Raceway or Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania and mention the event there. Catchpole (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Where do you get six figures from? Searching for the term you've introduced, "Mount Pocono" gives me two sources listing a figure of 200,000 people: a trivia page for a Rock Music course at Georgetown University classifies it as one of "The Most Famous Rock Festivals" "[55]; and a book on Gbooks titled "Protecting Dissent, Policing Disorder" published by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in 1974 lists the same number. A magazine ad in Billboard magazine on eBay claims 250,000. With all of this in mind, we are left with a small stub consisting of less than 25 words, considering that the other information Morgan added cannot be verified and is found in blogs and web forums. Now, I did point to the archive at the NYPL, but until someone can get their hands on that all we have is a stub. I suggest redirecting to Rock festival (where a link to the festival already exists) until this archive can be accessed by someone in New York. —Viriditas | Talk 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The sources belong in the article, not the AfD. Even if the flyer is genuine, a personal website is not considered a reliable secondary source. DarkAudit (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Can someone e-mail Dr. Burnette (Sonny_Burnette AT georgetowncollege.edu) and get his take on this? He's the one who calls this concert one of "The Most Famous Rock Festivals". (see link above) His bibliography can be found here so he's obviously getting this information from at least one of the books on that list. We also know there is an archive of material about this concert at the NYPL, but unless one has access to the physical collection, we can't get at it. —Viriditas | Talk 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I was at the concert myself when I was 16 (I'm 52 now) and remember people in the crowd were saying they heard there were 300,000, but of course they were guessing and spreading rumors. It is my impression that it was not as big as Woodstock, but I did not go to Woodstock so I cannot say. I am no expert at estimating crowds. I would believe the 200,000 figure as well as the 250,000 figure. There were about 20 acres of cars parked, although they were not parked very tightly, and this is also an estimate. I've been to concerts that had 10,000, this was at least 20 or 30 times bigger, and I've been to baseball stadiums filled with 40,000 and of course this was many times bigger. The problem with finding local newspaper articles to cite is that I have to get in my car and drive to NYC (200 miles) or the Poconos (250 miles) and I'm not really that into this article, sorry to say. I know you think this is very important to me. It is actually quite unimportant. But I thank the people who have done the legwork on finding sources.Morgan Wright (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You are very welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. Don't mention it, Veritas. Morgan Wright (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment. I'm removing the blog reference you added as it seems to be trying to sell the Rhapsody (online music service) and it is not a "reliable preiodical" as you claimed on your talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep now that reliable sources have been added. --MPerel 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep : A reliable source has been added indicating the notability. Europe22 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I believe there is agreement that there are enough references, will somebody please rem. the nomination tag from the main article?69.116.202.26 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)— 69.116.202.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Morgan, AfD's generally remain open for at least 5 days after nomination. --Veritas (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004

Natural Hygiene

This article was listed for deletion, and a notice added to the page, but the mediawiki page wasn't started. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I listed it. This is an ad for quackery. This showed up on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and someone had tried to NPOV it, but I doubt there is anything worth saving in this malarkey. Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think the subject is quackery, but I think the editor did a pretty good job of NPOV'ing it. The subject should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Thue 14:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - This is a well known branch of alternative medicine popularlized by Paul Bragg. A bunch of trolls have tried to destroy this article. But, the vandalism can be removed. The use of the word quackery is advocating a point of view. -- John Gohde 18:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - I am the original author of this page. I thought this was an encyclopedia, without censorship. Freedom of speech and freedom of health is a necessary thing if men are to aquire knowledge and pursue their own happiness. Whether it is quackery or not, is an opinion. I have had 32 years of experience with this. For those that are opposed, what experience do you have with Natural Hygiene? -- User:Paulbmann
Keep. It needs a lot of work to become truly NPOV (rather than just an argument between two sets of advocates) but is a perfectly valid article to be here.--ALargeElk 16:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I listed it on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and I was the editor who went through it and tried to NPOV it - in its original condition it was essentially an advertisement for the system it describes, and I'm afraid that is POV. Obviously the original author didn't like the results, and since I believe the system described is a particularly noxious kind of quackery, I may well have been too aggressive in my edits. But the place for that debate is the article's talk page. As far as VfD goes, whether we are for or against the system, it undoubtedly exists and has quite a significant following, so it is not just entitled to but needs an article. What it can't have is an uncritical piece of advocacy. seglea 17:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. Even if it's harmful stuff you don't agree with, it has a place in an encyclopedia so long as it is a theory of health that some people believe in, and provided the entry about it is NPOV - which it seems to be in process of becoming. Tonusperegrinus 18:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Withdrawing this; when I first read it my impression was that it was full of self-promotion that no attempt at NPOVing could fix, and idiosyncratic nonsense along the lines of the "real magic" article that was deleted a few days ago. It seems that it is idiosyncratic nonsense with a following. I am going to have to get out the book that has Martin Gardner's account of the death of Eugene V. Debs in it, it seems. Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitobi

Non notable, orphaned article. Rtphokie (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:CORP, does not meet criteria for inclusion. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:CORP --mariusstrom 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Republic Quarterly

non notable, orphaned article Rtphokie (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Quite a few Google hits, subject seems relevant enough. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete google hits do not give notability. I fail to see any significant coverage / honors for this group Corpx (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Horry County history essentially rides on this organization, and most books about or detailing Horry County either mention it or include information from it. Carson (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The Independent Republic Quarterly isn't a historical society as the article states, it's a publication of the Horry County Historical Society which doesn't even have an article. Looks like a small, but long time publication covering local history. I'm only counting 3 Google hits oustie of the Wikipedia article itself and the external link in the article, 1 is the local public library mentioning the publication, and 2 are genealogy related.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3 by User:Pegasus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Crans (Moon) and 2007 Jaden

Hoax. No such moon, no such asteroid. Corvus cornix_talk 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no reliable sources. Nakon 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Felix Just

No indication of notability in this article, the external link in this article. Google search doesn't produce anything notable either. Rtphokie (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Only one sentence, with no assertion of notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable biography, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

James Evans (actor)

Article about a nonnotable actor generated by himself (76.17X.XX.XXX is a blocked user claiming to be the same) or his associates to promote himself and his work in very minor roles, namely as a bailiff in a handful of court shows. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails under "entertainers" per Wikipedia:Notability (people) not a major part in a notable show, gg. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete 95% of the edits done to the article were done by editors later blocked as sockpuppets. Had it been only 5% with the majority of the edits being done by established editors, I might have felt compelled to rise to its defense. The article's only merit is that actor ishimself Latino and quite popular among hispanic viewers in the US. I do not know how well that demographic is represented here on Wiki, or if they might feel him to be notable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non of his productions or acting parts seem particularly notable - Dumelow (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, as the stated editors appear to be from SPAs. Notability based on genetic representation is not a factor in my decision, but the intent of the SPAs to circumvent policy definitely is. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiAfterDark

Non-notable website. Nakon 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep First, I'd like to point out that the nominator tried to speedy delete a sourced article that has stood for months. It seems they are jumping the gun a little bit asserting that a wiki that is the only one of its kind and is mentioned by name in The Boston Globe is not notable. VanTucky 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Nonnotable website written entirely as promotional material. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotional? Considering that I'm not connected to the website, that's a blatant assumption of bad faith. You also seem to be forgetting that the article has sources. VanTucky 04:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, the only neutral source is a one-sentence drive by reference. No notability provided. Corvus cornix_talk 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The only third-party source is a trivial mention. Fails WP:WEB. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Corvus and Lord Pistachio. Although I should mention that a one sentence mention is approximately the attention what Wikitruth received in its independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete, appears to fail WP:WEB. No genuine notability provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable. Mentioned by name in The Boston Globe, only one of its kind. Over 40,000 google hits. --helohe (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Google hits are not a valid reason to retain an article. The Boston Globe article is only superficial, as mentioned above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helohe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I get 266 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched like this, did you turn off the family filter? --helohe (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. You're searching for all sites that have the words Wiki, After and Dark in them, not a valid search for WikiAfterDark. Nor even for "Wiki After Dark" (with quotes around the search term). Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but if I'm searching it your way I get 9200 hits. --helohe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you go to the last page of the search? Only 305 unique hits. -[56] - most of those hits are dups on the same page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - No I didn't do that, thank you for the info. --helohe (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Only one third-party source? Rsazevedo ^msg 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No secondarily published information which could be used as verifiable information for an article. Wickethewok (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable website (an eight-word mention in a newspaper article rattling off a list of wikis is not really evidence of notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ESP Ahrue Luster

A google search in any language returns results that are mainly product listings with no information on why the product should be considered notable. Article has been unsourced likely because it doesn't appear that there are (m)any sources for this guitar. Travellingcari (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Vastly improved by rewrite. Most of the delete comments were prior to the rewrite.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Skim (software)

No notability asserted. No sources. Nothing to indicate this software warrants an article. Speedy deletion denied. Delete Exxolon (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. ("And much more...") ~ Carlin _{U T C} @ 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Mmmmmm... fresh spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. Appears to be the first and only open source (BSD license) PDF browser for OS X (correct me if I'm wrong). However, it is new, and likely with a limited user base. +mt 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - it looks and smells like a SPAM advert! WP:Advert. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Article has been substantially rewritten. It is still rather short, but it clearly no longer has an advertisement-like tone, and it is clearly references to four independent sources. This one now passes notability tests, even if the nominated version didn't. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Rewrite makes for a much better article; no longer spammy, contains valid citations, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Valid, concise, and interesting information. Asserts being the first open source pdf reader. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Asserts notability, with sources. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal

7 english ghits, a handful in French and no google news hits. None of the articles assert any real sense of notability and a search of local press didn't turn up much either. Article has also been orphaned since November 2006. Travellingcari (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:N, article in no way asserts notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not a notable building in any way, given the total lack of third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Historic building by very notable architect firm Pearson and Darling, a strong assertion of notability. The French google search was flawed in that English words were used in the search terms (French Canadians are notorious for translating everything to French, even though the original names were in English). I've added some referenced content to the article. After doing some more research, I see the proper name is the "Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building". --Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just did a new French search on the alternate French term that someone added and still came up with very little. I'm not sure a notable architect=notable building. Travellingcari (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless somebody can find significant coverage and/or prove that its on some historic list of buildings (a list maintained by a reliable source). Corpx (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I have been inside the banking hall of the building, and I was impressed. A building like this would have attracted significant coverage at the time it opened, but 1909 newspaper articles and architectural magazines can't be searched with Google. --Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not true, here's a search from that decade. Google has indexed a fair bit of material from that time. I'd also say that being 'impressed' isn't notable. I'm impressed with the street meet served outside my office, but that doesn't mean it's notable or garnered any press attention. No one has proved that this building has -- in any language. Travellingcari (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Comment - Is true. Google News Archives search is limited to certain newspapers that publish most archives or previews online. Only a handful like the New York Times do. Currently, none of the Montreal newspapers, either still in operation or defunct, will display newspaper articles from that time period on Google News Archives search. --Oakshade (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment so then you go to the source. Local library. I don't think notability can be determined based on what might have been covered. Just my two cents. ProQuest might be an option, however I'm currently having trouble logging in via my school's network. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what the original commenter was saying. You won't find urls from local newspapers from 1909. They exist on hardcopy and some of those references are now in the article. Print references are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

** CommentI read the revised article and my vote hasn't changed. I still don't think it meets notability. Clearly others agree as well. See above comments re: historic list of buildings and third party coverage. We'll see how it ends up but in my opinion, it still doesn't meet notability criteria.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —---Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —--18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oakshade (talk) t
Keep "it was one of the very first skyscrapers in Montreal."[57] - what do you mean, it isn't notable? Link it to something and we're fine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, the skyscraper building you're referring to from that reference is the building next door, The Canada Life Building (which probably should have an article for the reason you stated). This building is the one with the large columns to the right of it in the photo. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Apologies my bad. That one looks a pretty good example of neoclassical architecture although it might be built a little late to be significant (for Montreal I mean) - I'll have a hunt. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the nomination seems rather moot now - the article appears to have more references than bodytext! Out of interest I did find it listed in a catalogue of fine art at the University of Toronto [58] and another photo [59] regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I can't for the life of me understand how people see a "lack of coverage". No Google News hits? Well what do you expect: it's an old building and a piece of architectural history in Montreal. Why would that make headlines? No Ghits? Did you check your favourite library instead? The building is mentioned in the Canadian Encyclopedia, in the journal Canadian Architect and Builder, is listed as a significant part of Montreal architecture by Phyllis Lambert and by the McCord Museum [60]. Look beyond Ghits people. There are references at the bottom of the page: if you're too lazy to track these down in the library, fine, but don't delete the article on the grounds that you can't see it on the web. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I think the above makes it clear that significant coverage has been achieved. SorryGuy Talk 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Capital City (The Simpsons)

This article is just a plot repetition of this minor city in various Simpsons episodes, with no assertion of notability. As such, it is just duplicative of the very high quality Simpsons article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete nn, minor aspect of series. --JJL (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, rarely mentioned even in the series itself. Doubtful that secondary sources exist to satisfy WP:FICT. Mostly plot summary as well. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sufficiently covered by List of fictional places on The Simpsons#Capital City. Per WP:FICT there is insufficient content to support a split per WP:SIZE. I would also not be opposed to a redirect to the afforementioned link. -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Verdatum. Possibly redirect this term to the episode where the city first appears Doc Strange (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no real-world notability (and very little in the series either). Terraxos (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, pretty much by the same above reasons, although i think we could use a little of it perhaps. Kingpomba (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Transwiki Fictional subject with no real world notability Corpx (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to List of fictional places on The Simpsons#Capital City. Definitely a memorable aspect of perhaps the most notable animated series of all time. I was able to find at least one reference, which should be preserved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That source doesn't appear to be reliable and even if it was, it's just a direct transcription of dialogue from the show. It does nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The millions who have seen the episode could also vouch for it. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and the guidelines to establish notability. I don't think I need to restate those guidelines again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That particular reference is for the lyrics of a song mentioned, not for notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and that only reliable sources should be used as references. I don't think I need to restate the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to your opinion about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Five pillars states that it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable for information of a notable fictional city and again, I am not opposed to merging it into a list of fictional locations from that program. Many song articles have an external link to song lyrics. The Simpson's Guide reinforces what can be cross-referenced by watching the program in question regarding the particular aspect of the episode. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to review one primary aspect of the five pillars more closely. Specifically, the first line of WP:SOURCES and the first few lines of WP:SPS. The website you have referenced is a self-published, personal website that clearly does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Labeling it as a "specialized encyclopedia" is a blatant misrepresentation. I doubt anything useful will result from continuing this discussion since, contrary to my previous comments, you actually don't have an understanding of the policies that you reference, so in the interest of saving time for both of us I will not continue it further. Best, Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the reference that you feel should be preserved is merely a link to a WP:COPYVIO that has no place on WP. per WP:FICT, we really need a reference that establishes notability to keep the article. Otherwise, you're pretty much just saying WP:ILIKEIT. -Verdatum (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The ILIKEIT link is "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." We should respect that our readers and contributors have an interest in articles and willingness to improve them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a policy or guideline is not the issue. The issue is that it is not a very strong argument, and does little to counter the concerns raised. -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree and again I do agree with those who think a merger and redirect without deletion would be acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copyright violation. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruno Baumann

Notability, the article is confusing, no links out of it, its orphaned what not... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this page. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Dloh cierekim as nonsense. Dloh cierekim 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

North american bearvarine

Clearly a hoax. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete and consider blocking user. This is the user's only edit which tells me he isn't here to do anything constructive. Far too many hoaxes are being given far too much attention, another clear-cut case being Spider-Man: The Cartoon Movie. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hill (basketball)

No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, here's proof that he played on Duke's championship team [61] and here's proof that he was drafted by the Pacers [62]. He never actually played in the NBA, but if he was the 39th pick of the draft, odds are good that he played pro ball somewhere. Give me some time to do research on this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Add the refs, and I'll be glad to withdraw the nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of refs. It seems that he played pro ball in Australia -- I'm still looking for some details. But I'm confident this article can be expanded. Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good stub. Withdraw nomination. Good work. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, since delete arguments focussed on the Premier Basketball League but the time and awards in the British Basketball League do qualify. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Williams (basketball player)

No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Appears to play for a professional basketball team. Catchpole (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, whilst I don't pretend to know anything about basketball the Premier Basketball League in which he plays seems to be an alternative top level league and hence he has notability. Though I will of course defer to a more knowledgeable authority in this matter! - Dumelow (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, thanks for DarkAudit for informing me on the nature of the league in question. Change to delete as the league is too minor to transfer notability to players, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The Premier Basketball League is not even close to being a top level league. professional, yes. But in the same sense that minor league baseball players are professional. Even the info box describes the league as a "developmental". Players in minor leagues are not notable. DarkAudit (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete If it's not top level then NN as there is no other claim to notability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep According to this, he once played in the BBL, which is the top-level basketball league in the UK. He was even the player of the year in 2004 [63]. There's an article about him here. Now, England is not known as a basketball country, but this guy does have at least a minor claim to notability. Zagalejo^^^ 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. But his British career, so to speak, should be mentioned in the article. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If the above information provided by User:Zagalejo is added to the article, as well as the sources, it'll be a valid stub as far as I can see. I've added the first ref myself, and the second is too trivial. I'd withdraw if not for the delete !votes above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural close. This needs to go to WP:DRV. — Caknuck (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feloni

AfDs for this article:

Non notable? Previous nom closed when pointed to these reviews, but that page is a) self-pub, and b) has reviews *of the cd*, and c) has no reliably sourced material. Artist is non-notable per WP:N and WP:BAND SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No nontrivial and reliable sources for band. Also note that reviews were not added as refs for article since last AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The last AfD was closed by a non-admin user on the same day as the AfD was opened as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sing A Song of Patrick (Spongebob Episode)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and as it's only one particular episode, sources demonstrating notability are non-existent. NF24^{(radio me!)} 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable as an individual episode. Doesn't even seem worth merging to an episode list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not notable as an episode, content is largely useless as a merge to the episode list which has a decent synopsis of it - Dumelow (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the episode isn't notable, and the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and even if it didn't, it still goes against Wikipedia:Television episodes. -Alice2 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No notability for this episode Corpx (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:BAND . Keeper | 76 02:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pirates Records

Delete Although i like its name, it would seem to fail Wp:corp & Wp:music, article in no way asserts notability. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 for not asserting notability, so tagged. A search for sources turned up absolutely nothing of merit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Automobile Industry in Germany

There is no point for the existence of a specific article for automobiles when the article "Industry in Germany" doesn't yet exist. Also, of all branches of German Industy, automobile is the only one to have a specific article, there is no reason for this either. If this article were to cover the "History" of Automobile Industry in Germany, I could understand the point of it existing. As of now this entire article is simply a list of 10 out of date tables that should be present elsewhere on Wikipedia. This lack of reason to exist is one reason why is has been so rarely edited. EconomistBR 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think the tables themselves provide a certain level of valid information (even a few years old, they are not so old that you don't pick up a certain order of magnitude for production), but the article is entirely unsourced, and I don't know where the author got the information from. I am unsure on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, the new article is clearly written in an encyclopedic manner, so keep that. (And a big thank you to the person/people who took the effort to rewrite it.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is a stub on a notable subject. Other stuff does not exist is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is the sort of topic that an encyclopedia needs to cover. Even if the article is not in good shape now, it can be improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the automobile industry is very important in Germany and I am sure that a full, improved article would be welcomed by many. Keep and improve to a full article - Dumelow (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine I could vote to "keep" if either one of you Dumelow, Colonel Warden and Metropolitan90 makes a commitment to rewrite that article it may stay otterwise it should be deleted. So who is going to rewrite it? Or all you 3 will do is slap some TAGs and Templates on it?

Right now that article is utterly abandoned and rarely edited so much so that I removed a 4-month old vandalism on that page. The article's title is not being covered, there is simply the nice title followed by some out dated tables. EconomistBR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep definitely a notable topic. Yes, I will undertake to improve and reference the article (I'm working on it now), but may I remind the nominator that AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Neglect of an article is not a reason for deletion, and there's nothing wrong with placing nag tags and templates, in fact the lack of these on the article may have led to its neglect. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete What's the point of keeping a "notable topic" if that topic is: 1) abandoned 2) out dated 3) not coming close to adequately covering the subject at hand? It's better not to have an article at all. This article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned. It was therefore reducing the quality of this Encyclopedia.

Once someone had the time and will to find enough information he would create that article again and cover it in an appropriate manner. We are not obliged to keep or to have articles on every bit of " notable topic", that would be madness. EconomistBR (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This last !vote is from the nominator. If you take a look at the article now, I've rewritten to the most stringent referenced standards, and had done so an hour before you wrote the above comment. If you agree, perhaps you will consider withdrawing your nomination. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It was notable when nominated, but it now meets any reasonable standard for a basic article. Nominator uses WP:EFFORT ("abandoned") and other arguments that are not reasonable rationales for deletion ("outdated", "not adequate" -- see {{update}}, {{expand}}). AFD is not cleanup, it is for articles that cannot reasonably be improved. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely notable. It should probably be renamed Automobile industry in Germany (capitalization). Names of all such country articles should probably be standardized and the articles linked. There are also articles on Japanese automobile industry, Automobile industry in China, Automobile industry of the Soviet Union, Automobile industry in India, Automobile industry in Italy, Automobile Industry in the USA, British motor industry, Korean automobile industry.--Boson (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Canley deleted and rewrote the entire article I am withdrawing the AfD nomination for this article. My nomination was justified, this article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned so much so that Canley deleted all the information that existed on that article. User Dhartung distorts my rationale, abandoned doesn't mean "nobody is working on it" and "not adequate" has never meant "expand". This idea that the topic notability alone entitles it to exist on Wikipedia is too simplistic, articles should be minimally informative for them to allowed to exist. EconomistBR (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete all — Caknuck (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A Klass Records

Delete minor indy label, no claim to notability per WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, none of their bands/groups are on WP, blue links goto totally unrelated articles, like heartworm. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:CORP/WP:MUSIC, no notable releases on the label. The only valid bluelink, Anti-Kati, doesn't seem to be notable either, so I'm bundling it along with GOD Rekidz, another non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - "non-notable" - That record label seems to be too small so it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry EconomistBR (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Desilate

This article is written like a dictionary entry. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. All the earmarks of WP:MADEUP. Didn't bother to go through all the pages of ghits, but all the ones I saw seem to be misspellings of desolate. Deor (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Snowball delete. It's like the sort of fake word that 10-year-old boys make up and think it's cool to use. WP:WINAD is just the tip of the iceberg here. Should have been a WP:PROD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
But wait it's in Urban Dictionary! Oh, right. Delete—even if it's not made up, it's a neologism. Precious Roy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Opinions are divided, but no sources indicating that he meets WP:BIO are given in the article or the AfD. Fram (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David Houston (actor)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. I disagree that voicing a character, even one like Bond, in a video game gets past the threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - By the logic indicated above, all videogame voice-acting roles --- no matter how prominent or small, whether voiced by well-known film actors or lesser-known performers --- should be removed from Wikipedia. The implication seems to be that voice acting is somehow unworthy of inclusion, even when it involves a famous character. If the "threshold" is based on the fact that it's a video game (i.e. "other productions"), it really shouldn't be necessary to point out that the videogame is an entertainment medium which now rivals film and TV --- both in terms of revenue generated and production values. Dh67 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I make no statement about any other video game voice actor article, as WP:WAX is not a valid argument for retaining or deleting an article. That other voice actor articles exist has no bearing on whether this one should. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, the question of precisely why voicing Bond in a licensed videogame doesn't "get past the threshold" still remains. What exactly is the threshold, and why wouldn't an official portrayal of Bond get past it?Dh67 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO - I visited his web site at http://dhouston67.voices.com/ .

He is not notable, he simply is another actor who works on the show business but his name was tied to James Bond. If he were notable his name would have already been mentioned on the article Quantum of Solace (video game) which is the new James Bond game he is working on. Now, his name is not mentioned because he is just another guy working in the game. EconomistBR (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete nothing to indicate notability Corpx (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - With all due respect to the guidelines for deletion, the notability here stems from the fact that the Bond game is the first title in the 007 franchise to be published by Activision, one of the largest and most successful gaming companies in the world; that a relatively unknown voice actor would be cast as Bond in such a high-profile release is noteworthy in and of itself. To suggest that the actor himself is somehow unworthy of or disconnected from this notice violates all common sense. Dh67 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Whether or not there is a "threshold" for voice actors or whether this one would eventually meet it or not, there do not seem yet to be reliable source around to move this beyond crystal-balling.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author's request. Keeper | 76 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Newmeyer & Dillion LLP

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Newmeyer & Dillion LLP

No assertion of notability in secondary sources. Seems like a really spammy article trying to increase the Ghits for this particular rather anonymous lawfirm. Also, I have obvious WP:COI and {[WP:SPAM]] concerns. Keeper | 76 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Keeper, I hope you are doing well. I would prefer that the entire article just be speedily deleted because I would rather not wait the five days. Can you please advise? Thanks. Steno895 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. Keeper | 76 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Burj (word)

Permastub of non-notable topic that just contains a definition with no sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete and restore definition to intro of Burj dab page -- although perhaps a shorter definition there would be in order. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral but inclined to delete. I created this article so that I could clean the dab Burj; the info didn't seem to belong on the dab page and was, in any event, uncited but I was loath to lose it just in case ... I guess, on balance, my vote would be to delete it altogether and not transfer back to Burj because it wouldn't lead to an article, but I am pretty easy either way. Abtract (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete and restore definition, without unsourced etymological speculation, to Burj. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:BIAS does not trump WP:WINAD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a Thesaurus. The definition should be restored to Burj. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect. I've updated the Redwall (novel) page to contain the adapation information (it's the same book, but adapted with pictures) in lieu of the existing See also section. The new "Adaptation section" could use an expansion explaining how this new graphic version came about - reviews, illustrators, plot differences...). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Redwall Graphic Novel

Delete no sources, no indication that this is notable, fails WP:BOOK] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you mean WP:BK, not WP:BOOK. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable according to C5 of WP:BK...Furthermore, this article is only 4 days old. Give it some time. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
keep. Does indeed meet C5 of WP:BK. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep; Mainstream published graphic verson of mainstream published, award winning novel. Sources are readily available through a simple Google search. Needs a "references needed" tag, not deletion--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect until somebody cares to add content referenced by reliable sources. No need for a page holder Corpx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep interview short piece, this is a notable author and the series is 20 years old, passes criteria 5 of WP:BK IMO. Someone another 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - WP:BK criterion five is not about notable authors in general, but about historically significant authors, e.g. whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study and I fail to see how this can apply to Brian Jacques. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - First search I tried: [64]. Granted, not on par with Mark Twain, but it does show that the suggestion that his works are a subject of common classroom study is not completely unfounded. I actually think C5 is a bit of a shoddy argument for this particular AFD. Mostly I brought it up because I didn't feel like seeking out evidence for notability; I didn't expect everyone else to follow suit. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Interesting that it is at least recommend reading and possibly useful for the article on the author which is currently also void of any references. Meanwhile we can merge into Redwall (novel) since for all i understand from the current one liner, it is a derivative work.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong merge into Redwall (novel). The original novel is easily notable, but the graphic novel is not notable enough for a standalone article, and a section of the main article could easily handle this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into and to Redwall (novel). Unless and until the article is significantly expanded to a size beyond stub it isn't necessary to keep on its own. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Red dot design award

Delete nn design award where the winners pay for the privilege of having the award appear on their product. Advertisingcruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom: WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:SPAM Doc Strange (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:Spam; no external references to support that it is otherwise; no independent notability. Borders on CSD material.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Mesa Bible Camp

Non notable summer camp, few unique google hits, advert for camp Montco (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom and apparent WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete for all above reasons. Achromatic (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough relevance, for all reasons above. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shipston Excelsior

Contested prod, moving to AFD for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

delete Nothing at all to establish notability. Only Ghits were the team's own page and this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete not played at a high enough level for notability. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not enough relevance. Rsazevedo ^msg 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not verifiable or notable using reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the basics are easily verifiable using reliable sources - plenty of hits from Google etc., but they do play way too far down the pyramid to establish notability, so Delete. - fchd (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(Please ignore, I meant to post this on a different afd but must have had two windows open or something. Either way, I can't explain what it's doing here.Delete; there is no assertion that the subject has ever played professional football, and no evidence that he has. Nowhere near the required level of notability. Robotforaday (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given that this article is about a football club, your comment doesn't seem to make sense....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - You're right, no idea what that's doing there! I can only surmise that I was looking up a different player, and then returned to this to comment and remarked on the wrong afd altogether. Splendid. Robotforaday (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rack Attack

This article has been tagged for speedy delete and prodded for being SPAM. Original author has not complied completely with <hang-on> request but makes appropriate comment seeking assistance. That said it should got to AfD for consideration as to whether it is blatant advertising or not. --VS ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - editor had a relationship with a very similar article titled Rack N Road which has been speedily deleted 3 times over the past 12 months.--VS ^talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment It does have the article in the Denver Post. But what's a gutter-less raingutter? Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:CORP. To quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." One Denver Post article does not meet these requirements. --mariusstrom 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per MariusStrom -Verdatum (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this is essentially an advertisement. TJRC (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation

The investigation is over, and this article is just a pathetic waste of memory and bandwidth. FOUR WORDS: MERGE TO MICHAEL VICK. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge, no need for this sad episode to have an exclusive article. Rsazevedo ^msg 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to above user: This article meets all of the qualifications under WP:N, and is a historic moment in animal cruelty. In addition, this is a high profile active criminal ongoing investigation, insofar as Gerald Poindexter and the State of Virginia are concerned. But I am not surprised that such deletion nominations have occurred, as noted for reasons stated below this. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep This nomination seems to be bad-faith and pointy as this AfD is the only contribution of BDFEF. There are over 130 sources cited within the article, it was one of the largest and most publicized criminal investigations of 2007 and brought the issue of dogfighting to the forefront within the United States. Merging it to Michael Vick would be virtually impossible with everything listed within the article, and the nominator's claims that this is a 'pathetic waste' are untrue as just about everything is sourced. Also note that Michael Vick wasn't the only figure in this, so to merge it within there would be clumsy. There could be some editing of the article to be sure, but to delete and merge would be too rash. Also, court proceedings are continuing as far as state charges and the NFL's own future reaction, so while the investigation may be over, everything else continues. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as Nate says, an extremely well-sourced article on an extremely large and heavily publicized affair. If anything, I would say there's already too much in the Michael Vick article, 5 pages of blow-by-blow details is a excessive for a topic that already has its own separate article. --Stormie (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge into something if possible. This is not wikinews. We do not need stories documenting every current story out there. Editors should spend their time documenting current stories at wikinews, not here. Corpx (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Deletion not requested by nom or anyone else. See Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, not only is this investigation quite notable in its own right, but the article is so lengthy (a good thing, right?) that merging it would be impossible without removing the vast majority of the content. Everyking (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep, for one thing, while the investigation portion may or may not be over, the incident most certainly is not over. The state felony trials in Virginia don't even start for several more months (Vick's is set for April 2; he potentially faces 10 years in state prison in addition to the federal stuff). As far as lumping this in with the Vick article, the federal portions involved 4 defendants other than Michael Vick, and three of those are also state defendants who are also awaiting trials. Once the trials and sentencing are basically completed, it may be appropriate to condense this article quite a bit. If at that time, we do not want it to stand as a separate article, maybe we could merge it into another article such as Dog Fighting in the United States. However, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't been following this for the past 9 months, we started this WP article in the first place because the Michael Vick and Dog Fighting articles were each felt to be too large already. I suspect that the AFD sentiment now is merely an expression of the pro-Vick bias we have been battling all along as we have tried to keep things NPOV. BTW, I am from the Hampton Roads area, and this is certainly no source of local pride, but neither are we (or the local media) ignoring it. At this time, it is an ongoing story. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Keep but move to just Bad Newz Kennels. There is too much information to shoehorn this into the article on Michael Vick, and Vick, although perhaps the only notable name, isn't the only person involved. The fact that this once once current news is totally irrelevant; it is a notable event, and notability is not temporary. Torc2 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I agree with talk, there is no way to merge this into the Vick article without losing something significant. As soon as the Investigation is concluded (which I believe it has), change the name accordingly. This should have never been brought up for speedy deletion. There has been a rash of these lately on articles that have been around for awhile. Hourick (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - For what it's worth, Brokendownferrarienzoferrari has also nominated Super Bowl XLII for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XLII (now closed). Not assuming bad faith or anything, but wow. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- And their user page is just template to another user page, User:Sarranduin. Dunno what's up with that. Torc2 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Note that the nominator started an obviously speedily kept AfD for Super Bowl XLII last night. Nate • (chatter) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close due to lack of reasoning. Even the nominator does not appear to want this deleted, but merged. AfD is not the place to hash out merges. It's called Articles For DELETION for a reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close per lack of true reasoning for deletion; nom's only other contributions have been an obvious POINTy nomination. If it weren't for all the merge !votes, I'd have closed this myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and Speedy close: The investigation is NOT over. The federal case may be closed, but the state case is far from closed. The person who nominated the article for deletion made a factual mistake in thinking so, as there are still state charges stemming from this, scheduled to go to trial in spring 2008. In addition, this article will continue to meet Wikipedia's notability standards well after it is over, as this is a historic case in animal cruelty Maybe at that time, a rename should be considered, but NOT UNTIL AFTER the state trials are concluded, but absolutely not a deletion. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to above: In addition, this investigation has FOUR subjects, not ONE. Also, as noted above, since it meets WP:N, it will never lose it.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[1] Foutch, Michael. "Determination to live up to family heritage leads to flag rank for Reserve Force leader". Daily Online News, p8. September 13, 2004

[2] Caesar, Julius. "Mission Effectiveness". Mid-Atlantic Currents, page 9. Spring 2005, Vol 36, Iss 2

[3] Wiltrout, Kate. "Surface Aid for the U.S. War on Terror". The Virginia-Pilot, August 24, 2006.

[1]

[2]

[3]