Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs of Oklahoma[edit]

Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. Even following some of the songs that had articles found Oklahoma connections to be unsourced. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Music of Oklahoma. Most of these, admittedly, aren't notable. We all know "O-klahoma" from the musical, and "Okie From Muskogee" and Fastball's "Sooner or Later", but you don't HAVE to put in everything. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As random list of info Mbisanz (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely, since List of songs about California and List of songs about Alabama both of which show that this article could be better. However the name would need to be changed to List of songs about Oklahoma, since it is not clear what we are to make of the definition of "of" here, as Clinton might have put it. Lobojo (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Smithsonian Institution classifies its collection of music Americana by state ([http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d5300nh1.htm here), and if it's good enough for the Smithsonian it's good enough for Wikipedia. The list is not indiscriminate at all. It's criterion for inclusion is that a song is about the state of Oklahoma, or geographical locations therein. That's a rather distinct and small amount of music. Oklahoma is a rather out of the way place that people do not think of often. Residents are keenly aware of songs that are about their state, and it helps define the culture of the state internally and to the outside world. Hence, it is an encyclopedic and notable subject. There is a similar article, Music of Oklahoma, but that is different. Both issues are important - the indigenous music, and also what musicians nationwide say about Oklahoma. Becuase there is very little in the state by way of a music industry, most songs get sung about Oklahoma by expatriates and transplants, not in Oklahoma. Wikidemo (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If wikipedia listed all the songs already, then listing by such sub-classification might be OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have to start somewhere, remember wikipedia is incomplete! Lobojo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much original research, too many entries are not notable (do not have their own articles). The intersection of song and state is too random. If the content was notable, then it could be merged to Oklahoma, but it's not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Music of Oklahoma, per Mansford. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Lobojo and Wikidemo. The list is discriminate -- the common bond is that all the songs are about a specific place. Including a song with "Oklahoma" or "Okie" in its title or lyrics is not original research -- it is primary information where the song is the source (similar to a plot summary taken from a film). Bláthnaid 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lobojo, Wikidemo and Blathnaid. Circeus (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list. Addhoc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No criterion, NOT#INFO. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huruph Runasimi[edit]

Few hits on Google, 0 hits on JSTOR, for this constructed script that writes Southern Quechua in Perso-Arabic script. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources. Only source is Langmaker, which anyone can edit. prod contested by author on talk page. Aagtbdfoua (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, and apparent conflict of interest / attempt at promotion of a personal project ("..currently under development by user Rcgy", article creator and sole real contributor is User:Rcgy). --Stormie (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends 'Til the End[edit]

I'm getting nothing on Google or TV.com. "Friends 'Til the End" does come up as a 1987 movie but this looks like a violation of WP:CBALL to me. Redfarmer (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly speedily. This was an internet rumor from nearly two years ago (see here). It simply isn't true. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal - also, article is written NPOV.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced rumors and violates WP:CRYSTAL.Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable, Wikipedia is not the place for rumours.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless article! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:UGLY. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party Sex Scandals[edit]

Any sex scandal should be mentioned in the individual's article. To group sex scandals by political party is unnecessary and blantantly non-neutral (POV fork). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party Sex Scandals. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles for both parties. Quite apart from it being non-neutral, divorcing these "scandals" from their wider context just makes for a prurient and unedifying list. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Share fate (Delete) of Republican article. No need to repeat reasons here. - Aagtbdfoua (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Although I don't see the merit in "Democratic" and "Republican" sex scandal articles (other than to demonstrate that both red and blue get in trouble), I don't agree with the idea that scandals should be mentioned only in individual articles either. The quality of both of these articles is poor-- the Democrat article is limited to Bill Clinton (author is probably too young to remember Gary Hart), and the Republican article focuses on Rush Limbaugh's drug rehab ("whilst not a sex scandal..."). However, political sex scandals merit their own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The way I see it, this was created only to somehow "balance" the Republican article, which is also NPOV... just get rid of both of 'em. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be an amalgam of tabloid journalism and attacks. Independently notable incidents, like the Lewinsky scandal, have their own articles. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no good reason to separate out sex scandals by party, and right now only the Clinton sex scandal is discussed anyway and we already have a full article on that. *** Crotalus *** 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Republican Party Sex Scandals - it's POV by nature due to its focus on a single political party. There is no encyclopedic reason to separate political scandals by party. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Political scandals of the United States per various delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per reasoning both here and in the other AfD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for 'sex scandals'! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst sex scandals and other naughtiness by political types are often notable, such things should be put in context, ie in the article of the individual concerned. Xdenizen (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Metropolitan90 Will ^(talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article functions as an open invitation to soapboxing and pov pushing. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently POV --skew-t (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's been open long enough and consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard stegmann[edit]

If you came here because you saw this being commented upon on the blog itself, 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}}.

This article should be discussed among editors and decided as to whether it meets WP:Notability standards. I have mixed feelings, but am leaning towards 'delete' because of the very small amount of Internet linking to the books written by this author. Also, the publisher of Heywood Jablomi is "Signature Imprint", which is an extremely obscure publisher as near as I can tell. Also, the author's website[1] claims a total of 43 books sold, which may be a joke, hard to tell. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a self-published author. Unverifiable by reliable sources. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, I also added dead-end tag, orphan tag, and a unreferenced tag. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HERE YE! HERE YE!

in regard to the notability, in fact NOBILITY, of American Humor Writer, Leonard Stegmann, it seems worth noting his contributions in the blogosphere as well. Leonard Stegmann, is one of America's first official, "blogumnists" (term coined by me, sandra kay, ttgp, fellow writer, poet, playwright on a television program, in a word, TV30.ORG, 09/19/06 #IAW0610), writing and posting entertaining columns at leonardstegmann.blogspot.com 5 DAYS A WEEK, beginning in June 2005. His comments, to comments, setting etiquette standards for current and in-coming bloggers.

and to refer to leonard stegmann LEONARD STEGMANN! as non-encyclopedic? -oh, you obviously need only spend a few moments reading his posts! he is exactly where i turn for all my knowledge of current events, popular culture, political hindsights, and new vocabulary words! he is my encyclopedia! how else would i know how much howard stern earns per show? or that larry king wears suspenders! LEONARD STEGMANN is america's LINK to the other side. CHARLIE ROSE AND LEONARD STEGMANN, what more do you need? KNOWLEDGE AND LAUGHTER.

i credit leonard stegmann, with, quite literally, saving my life. our God blessed friendship, well documented in the over 12,000 comments at leonardstegmann.blogspot.com. it would be foolish to delete a man contributing so much to the literary world, the blogosphere and humanity in general.

DO NOT DELETE! he is a living legacy in progress. a genius of a different kind.

i know

i own 43 of his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.120.158 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete After reading the plea about this "blogumnists", and now finding out he has a BLOG that he contributes to 5 days a week, I must say, it is suprising that the article only has 4 sentences. I found tons of blog entries and little else. Please feel free to point me toward the other references and change my mind. If he did all the things that the AC/IP pointed to above, where are the links? Pharmboy (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Article has zero value, zero sources, and zero notability. It was created by an account with 0 edits prior to its creation, and the long winded keep arguement was made by an IP with no edit history whatsoever. Furthermore, without sourcing, does anyone believe there is a book entitled "Heywood Jablomi" (come on 3rd grade joke) THe internet essays of 1840-1880 (or something like that). Seriously, without sourcing.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some random blog + a few microscopically-tiny-press'd books = not much notable. If they are as notable as the pleas and the blog post where this AfD was hyped upon indicate, then it would be not a problem to find the sources? Meatpuppets appear to have been summoned; now please tell them to find Reliable Sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't expect many actual meatpuppets, as it appears only one[2] blogger actually reads the stegmann blog. And, judging from the style of writing, the four comments[3] to that Jan 1st stegmann blog entry seem like sockpuppets. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party Sex Scandals[edit]

Page is definitely a violation of NPOV. Focusing on the Republican Party scandals in particular due to their "running a platform on family values" (as stated in the article) is definitely anti-Republican and does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. These scandals just happen; the Republicans do it to themselves by running the family value platform while not being holy.... Although I would recommend a Democratic Party Sex Scandals article to balance the odds.Arnoutf (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. This article isnt intended to be anti republican at all - I have started this article about an hour ago and it will contain factual, objective and referenced material that focusses on other public republican figures. There should be a Democratic version of the page (I simply started with republican because one has to start somewhere). in this case however there is a real value in the article because of its contradiction to the republican political platform. I would find an article about democratic environmental scandals or health care scandals to be equally valuable because they are components of the democratic platform. were it not for this contradiction to the historical political platform the article would have little interest. Jacksonmahr (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response The problem there is that you just said it yourself - "there is a real value in the article because of its contradiction to the republican political platform." If you're trying to contradict a political party platform, then you have to assume a position which is contrary to that political platform, therefore making your position biased. Yes, it is possible to write about politics neutrally and objectively, but if the puropse of the article is to contradict, then the entire article will be biased against the Republican party. Calgary (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any 'sex scandals' will be covered in articles on individual people. This article currently features Mike Huckabee because a rapist was released while he was in office who went on to offend again. How is that a 'sex scandal'? Every political party runs on family values anyway. Nick mallory (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself violates NPOV by taking two subjects which are not directly related and implying a connection. It is really not possible to have an article about "Republican Party sex scandals", because this would suggest that the sex scandals in question were an act of, or directly involved the Republican Party, when in fact they were simply committed by people who are members of the Republican party, which is something different altogether. The scandals themselves are the responsibilities of the individual people whocreated them, not the political party to which they belong. In any case, we have a "sex scandals" section as a part of Political scandals of the United States. Calgary (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Arnoutf (and the text of the article) seems politically motivated, and it is true that the title suggests a connection which is opinionated, and not NPOV, which is mandatory. Better delete it, as mentioned, we already have Political scandals of the United States. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant POV fork. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party Sex Scandals. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose btw there is a democratic party version now. in response to calgary - it is not my article that is contradicting the political platform but rather the actions of those who have used it and contradicted it by being involved in the scandals. the article on roman catholic sex abuse cases is a similar use of this contradiction - apart from its newsworthy nature, it is the contradiction of the actions of the priests involved and their public position on moral behaviour (particularly sex and homosexuality) that made the scandals especially important. the article isnt suggesting that catholics are immoral or that other religions arent capable of similar corruption, but it is illustrating the contradiction. The reason this article discusses Cathoic sex abuse and not Jewish or Buddhist is not because the article is biased agaist catholics but because this is the church where it happened to be discovered.

- Response Yes, but what you're ignoring here is the fact that the Republican Party is not contradicting itself here, it is the individual people involved who are doing so. The Republican party as a whole has never taken part in a sex scandal, and so the Republican party is not contradicting itself. Grouping politicians who have been involved in sex scandals together by political party suggests that somehow the two are related, when they're not. Even if each of the politicians holds a strong position on family values, and even if each of them has seemingly contradicted themselves, this does not demonstrate anything to do with the Republican party as a whole, only the individuals involved. Calgary (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as bias of this particular article, I am british, living in London - I hardly have a dog in the race. I agree the article needs to be written objectively, but simply because it exists doesnt make it politically biased.Jacksonmahr (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles for both parties. Quite apart from it being non-neutral, divorcing these "scandals" from their wider context just makes for a prurient and unedifying list. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response No one is defining how the article is biased here - simply being in the context of one political party doesnt make it biased, especially if it is referenced and factual. It may be unpleasant, granted, but simply being unpleasant doesnt make it biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonmahr (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it here's the problem. The topic is Republican (or Democratic) Party Sex Scandals. However really there's no such thing. There's a sex scandal of Mr. John Doe, who's a member of the republican party ... and his college alumni association... and the neighborhood book club, all unconnected with his scandal. To link the two in an article becomes by nature a POV article, by implying that the membership in the party is connected to his scandal.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea is steeped arbitrary bias. What defines a "sex scandal"? This is an arbitrary value judgement often made by people with axes to grind. In essence anything called a "sex scandal" is assumed to be one. Why is a "sex scandal" more important than any other type of "scandal"? Again, it is an arbitrary value judgement. How serious does a "sex scandal" have to be to be included in the article? How senior the politician? How can a standard be set and enforced fairly and consistently for both articles? If this article was "List of US national level politicians convicted of sexual offences" then it would at least have a solid factual frame work to work from. "Sex scandal" is just too arbitrary and that just invites bias. We might as well have a List of dingbats by political party and just forget any notion of encyclopedic standards. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DanialRigal I agree that the inclusion of everyone would be arbitrary and (probably) never-ending. it would be pointless. however lets take as a reference point the case of Newt Gingrich and his actions in impeaching Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. It was later discovered that Gingrich was himself having an affair and contradicting the values that he was not only judging Clinton on but he had run for office on himself. This is a scandal. Some minor member of congress simply having an afair is not, in this context, the same thing - its not of interest because it involves no level of profile or hipocriscy. Perhaps it is a question of relabeling the article or refocussing the content. - unfortunately its disappearing as fast as it was written.Jacksonmahr (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Although I don't see the merit in "Democratic" and "Republican" sex scandal articles (other than to demonstrate that both red and blue get in trouble), I don't agree with the idea that scandals should be mentioned only in individual articles either. The quality of both of these articles is poor-- the Democrat article is limited to Bill Clinton (author is probably too young to remember Gary Hart), and the Republican article focuses on Rush Limbaugh's drug rehab ("whilst not a sex scandal..."). However, political sex scandals merit their own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election year already? Delete unless these are going to be sourced to (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV) sources that talk about the phenomenon of Republican Party Sex Scandals. Stringing together a laundry list of 'scandals' and asserting a phenomenon called 'Republican Party Sex Scandals' seems pretty WP:OR to me. Article would also need to justify fork from general Political scandals in US article (i.e., there would have to be WP:V, WP:NPOV cited substantial difference between handling of scandals in parties). Even then, seems excruciatingly minute for an encyclopedia. The after-thought of an article about the Democrats should share the same fate. - Aagtbdfoua (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response in response to Mandsford, author is indeed old enough to remember gary hart, but thank you for the patronising comment anyhow - always helful in forwarding debate! The reason one article exists on Democratic page is because both articles are less than 2 hours old when the big debate started - hart would need to be included, along with others. Response to Aagtbdfoua - I agree - election year already! do all queried articles receive such as hailstorm of debate? I agree with comments in terms of relevance to existing political and political scandal articles - quite neccessary to do if the subject even survives this heated scrutiny Jacksonmahr (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be an amalgam of tabloid journalism and attacks. Independently notable incidents, like the Lewinsky scandal, have their own articles. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this list hopelessly presentist (only 2 scandals are listed, both of which were in the past year or two), but the first 3 paragraphs are also pure original research. Also, there is absolutely no good reason to separate political sex scandals by party. *** Crotalus *** 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Political scandals of the United States per various delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a useful or NPOV way of organizing this information. I agree entirely with Aagtbdfoua. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for 'sex scandals'! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Democratic Party sex scandals Notable articles such as the Lewinsky, Foley, and Craig incident has already received enough mention on Wikipedia. миражinred 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the same reasoning I offered for the other lot. Xdenizen (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Metropolitan90 Will ^(talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article functions as an open invitation to soapboxing and pov pushing. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently POV --skew-t (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. jj137 ^♠ 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonkie[edit]

Based on complete lack of any Books, Scholar or Web hits, I don't believe this is individual (?) is notable. I can't find anything about the mythology this is apparently a part of and it reads more like in-universe information from a fantasy novel, although it claims to have been "real" mythology. Could be a hoax, possibly related to some other religion/mythology articles currently up for deletion. Kateshort forbob 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks very much like a hoax, if not, totally unnotable. Arnoutf (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing out there about Sonkie, and a Google search for the "Bulpersic mythology" referred to in the article turns up nothing. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above reasons. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Also, no links to the article, only talk pages, and articles for deletion pages. (Added orphan tag), also added dead end tag.Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Christian Athletic Association[edit]

High school athletic regulatory body that is likely non-notable and has been tagged for not establishing notability for several months. No secondary sources or references other than its official website. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I searched a bit using Google ("Federated Christian Athletic Association"), and found these two pages of note, and the FCAA is mentioned briefly here. I don't know if that's enough to establish notability, but it's a start, and I wouldn't mind keeping the article. Not terribly opposed to deletion either; it'd be nice to see better sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not suitable for a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Xdenizen (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. --Canley (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Guidi[edit]

Resumecruft with barely an assertion of notability. The only thing that comes close to notability are the jazz festivals he played at. it:Umbria Jazz is a notable festival, and it:Pescara Jazz is probably notable. I'm not sure about the other two, Ivrea and Aosta. All in all, I'm not sure this person meets WP:MUSIC, so as it stands, I think this article should be deleted. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Benefit of the doubt, on indeed notability. Google gives about 6000 hits on "Peter Guidi" (parenthesis included in search), and at least 2 of his CD's are availabe through international webshops (Amazon). Arnoutf (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is less his musical achievements as a player which warrant his inclusion than his teaching - bringing jazz to a new and very young generation of players. His bands - dating back to the 1990s - have already yielded several significant new young Dutch jazz performers, such as Jan Menu and Benjamin Herman. BTW - sorry - but I have no idea how this formatting works :( -- mcleaver<talk> 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that teaching jazz to young people does not make someone notable. It would only make him notable if it involves truly notable musicians, if his role in their development was vital, and if this has been established by reliable sources. Something along the lines of Colonel Tom Parker. If teaching non-notable and barely notable musicians is more important to his notability than his musical achievements, as you say, I'm afraid not much remains. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I prefer erring on the side of inclusion in borderline cases. Powers ^T 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a borderline case if there is some assertion of notability, if the discussion is about the extent to which the subject meets WP:MUSIC. The author has admitted himself that what might have met WP:MUSIC (his musical achievements) is less important than what doesn't meet WP:MUSIC (being a teacher). Then how is this a borderline case? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I believe that his musical achievements are sufficient to establish a modicum of notability; that the article's author believes his educational and outreach efforts are even more notable does not erase that. Powers ^T 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But what are those musical achievements? Playing at the jazz festivals I mentioned in the nom? Playing with "many leading jazz musicians" (who are they?) ? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe Arnoutf covered it sufficiently, why not go bother him? =) Powers ^T 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WHen it comes to achievements, I have not yet added the fact that his bands have won a large number of awards. I shall do so right now. :) -- mcleaver<talk> 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Villains (Wizard magazine)[edit]

This article is basically nothing, it lacks notability, content, importance, and ontop of all that the content it has is very unencyclopedic, I certainly don't think this warrants a wikipedia article. Blueanode (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment might this not infringe the copyright of Wizard magazine? If so, it should be speedy deleted. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last 90 villians were snipped off to minimize copyvio concerns. I think this is covered, but I am not an expert on this issue. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt it's a copyvio, since the list was in the July '06 issue, and this is the type of thing that magazines want to be noticed for and quoted from, hence, not copyrighted. I agree with nom, however, that it's unencylopedic. Essentially, it's a description of an article in a magazine that most people have never heard of, let alone read. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I cannot make a case for keeping this, I'm leaving a merge proposal on Talk:Wizard (magazine) to see if editors there think it is worth incorporating into that article. If the list is determined to be a serious copyright infringement, the merge can be called off. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator of the article. It was my first wikipedia article and was more of an experiment than anything else. ArdClose (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ArdClose, and notability concerns. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list in a magazine is unlikely to be notable unless it's of some major significance. Having said that, I have no objection to a merge on this one. It's just that third-party sources about this particular list are very unlikely to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ArdClose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result is Delete. --VS ^talk 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limelight (band)[edit]

This new article has quickly gone through a speedy nomination and a proposed deletion nomination (the latter by me). Both have been removed by the same anonymous editor, so I'm bringing it here.

The article claims some remarkable things for this American band, and namedrops everyone from Elvis Costello to Hillary Clinton; however none of it is true. This is a complete hoax. Kateshort forbob 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoaxalicious with a Retsyn™ center. "limelight band rob mantegani" turns up bupkis on Google, so it must be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete' per WP:SNOW. I put the Speedy tag on the article originally (incorrectly, as it does actually assert its notability, technically). Obvious hoax. Apparently released somewhere around 6 CDs in '07. selling about 100 million copies. Then why have I never heard of them? --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, not to mention per WP:BOLLOCKS. This article makes absolutely ridiculous claims that could not possibly be true, and Google turns up absolutely nothing for a band that supposedly is loved by half the world. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP IT!!!!!" Are you seriously kidding me right now? How can you not have heard of Limelight? They are one of the best bands out there, not to mention the most attractive. Saying that you havent heard of Limelight is like saying that you haven't heard of brittney spears (one of my all time idols)! I am Limelight's #1 fan, I have all their albums and i totally agree with Hillary, which is why I'm voting for her and I hope that she wins despite her unfaithful husband, and her strange eyebrows. I find it insulting to hear that you think it is a hoax. If you havent heard of them...then you are pretty much a loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.83.68 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"DEFINITELY KEEP!!!" How can anyone have never heard of Limelight? Its only like the greatest band in the history of all time. I went to a Limelight concert last spring, and I was totally blown away. My life has been changed forever. Robert Mantegani is a musical prodigy, so its no wonder he got a record contract at age five. Limelight is definitely like, the #1 band in band history. And if you think that this band is "bollocks", then there is definitely something wrong with you. So, yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.116.83 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. WP:CSD -Freekee (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells like a hoax to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Limelight is my favorite all time band and to delete their profile would be a sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley45671 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete, I'm nominating this for speedy deletion as patent nonsense (any article that claims "Rolling Stone magazine ranked them as #1 on the Greatest Bands of All of History ahead of Bob Dylan and Bach" is talking utter nonsense) too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation if/when more coverage is available. — Scientizzle 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black List Club[edit]

Non-notable. They haven't even record an album yet. They claim to be signed by Sire, but I cannot find anything to support that except their own press releases. Kingturtle (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. They appear to have two notable members, but other than that they fail WP:MUSIC at the moment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per User:HisSpaceResearch, without prejudice for recreation if/when the band becomes notable. A couple of lines in the Avril Lavigne article, Re: the career paths of her axemen would probably suffice at present (this from someone who has made edits to the BLC article). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Main body of this was copied from the opening of Zeus. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshadik. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suramnis mythology[edit]

Another likely hoax; references Joshadik, also up for AfD. A handful of ghits, most of which reference a Korean town and hab=ve nothing to do with this topic. WP:NFT. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as someone who prodded the article. Nothing I've seen so far indicates that this is a notable religion. Possibly not even real. --Kateshort forbob 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kojongie[edit]

This seems to be an invention. A Google search for Kojongie returns no hits. Likewise searches for possible mis-spellings, e.g. kajongie, the inventor or phrases like 'Nigerian hat' return nothing that suggest kojongies actually exist. Gaffertape (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:V, nothing here to suggest that this is not a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it's non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided and zero non-wiki hits when searching through Google -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. The first two paragraphs were copied from the opening of Zeus with a couple of name changes. The last paragraph was copied from Heaven#In Islam, again with a couple of name changes. This left on original sentence in the middle. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshadik[edit]

Contested speedy. Likely hoax. Title turns up four ghits, all of them user names on other sites or similar. See WP:NFT. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-flat[edit]

An obscure musical note. Does it deserve a Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or otherwise Merge to E (musical note). I've played piano since I was 4, and I know I've seen an F-flat pop up now and then (usually as part of a D-flat diminished chord). I'm not certain that there's enough content here for a separate page, so, as I said, it could be merged to E instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The D-flat diminished chord would have to contain an A double flat as well, and I doubt any 4-year-old knows about double flats. Georgia guy (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say I was four when I saw the sharps and flats (more like 16, when I started playing keyboard in church). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the enharmonic equivilent of E (musical note). Does occasionally pop up, and is notable enough to merit a reference but probably not enough for its own article. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into E (musical note). Unlike C-flat (which is really B), F-flat doesn't have its own key signature. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Keep -Very well, I am conviced. I do play keyboard, but apparently I'm not worth my salt. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although seldom used now it's historically significant and the fact that it's the only note without a key makes it significant. I'm sure more could be written about this. Nick mallory (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can tell who are the keyboard players here. ☺ Yes, F-flat does have its own key signature. It involves eight flats with a double flat of B. It is only on the chromatic scale that a flattened note is equivalent to the semitone below. In other scales, F flat is lower in pitch than E natural. F-flat is a diminished fourth above C, whereas E natural is a major third above C. The 1823 Encyclopaedia Britannica has a detailed explanation of this in its entry for "Music", if you want to learn more. So the question that you should be asking yourselves is: Are we aiming for Wikipedia to be at least as informative as the 1823 Britannica? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - F-flat is a pretty standard tone in even intermediate-level music theory. That it's not commonly used is like arguing we should delete Thulium because it's rare and relatively useless compared to Oxygen. F-flat is a different theoretical creature than E-natural, and in spite of being enharmonic, substituting E-natural for F-flat (or vice versa) in a tonal composition is simply wrong. Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, I am neutral! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could do with a little work, but undoubtedly valid (if unusual). Guy (Help!) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is standard WP:OSTRICH fare. I respectfully ask that this nom be withdrawn. RFerreira (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully dissagree with the proposal by user RFerreira to withdraw this nomination and I ask that this please follow it's due process. --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: (this should be merged into the article fa. There is no need to have an article for every harmonic alteration. What next G tripple flat. (It exists! Along with the millions of other permutation... this sound like a similar case that is happening at Time and how we could have an article for virtually every magnitude. --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fa is a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply
    The dis-ambiguation Fa, as you state is a dissambiguation which however makes reference of the term Fa, under music, and links to the article "Note". I believe this is good.
    The article F (musical note) is an anaemic article and a content fork. I propose it, including the content of F♯, F-flat and any other article related to Fa be merged. That includes this article ("F-flat major") which should be merged into the article Note as a subparagraph of a sections called scales.
    Notice the difference between this article which is nominated for deletion and that it is called F flat major. What next, "F flat enharmonic minor" and "F flat ascending Phrygian and descending Mixolydian minor mode"? (These are scales permutations similar to any permutation which could be compared to a chemical compound or a magnitude of time
    Again, please merge this article... including Fb (or F flat) (even if Fb it is not created yet!) and other fa derivatives related to music. I remcomend: Fa (music) and/or Note. Then, and only if there is to much information in those respective articles, should we content fork (WP:CFORK).
    Furthermore, this article does not appear to address the scale issue within the first few sentences.
    I believe all C, D, E, F, G, A (music note) are the fundemental values and that everything else is a harmonic deviation or a content fork. It almost like having an article for 50 Watt light bulb and 75 Watt light bulb.
    Also note: The article F (musical note) should also be renamed F (music) or Fa (music) so we could then present and discuss in a marcoscopic view point many musical components of the thousands of different variations.
    As per my above comment, it should be merged for now until there is more information and it doesn't appear to be some sort WP:POV. (That is a violation of WP:NPOV Undue weight... which may stem down to some very argumentative philosphical, scientific and other reasons. C flat vs B... E sharp vs. F. etc...) --CyclePat (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Reformated Reply at approx. 10h11 p.m. EST)[reply]
    - There have been some bizarre arguments put forward at AFD before now. But the idea that flats and sharps are points of view ranks quite highly on the bizarreness scale. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps indeed... We could talk philosophy for POV's... but Flats and sharps are modifications of the fundamental musical note and stem down to a common denominator which is the basic musical note. Any arguments, such as the comment from SeanMD80 regarding slight variations Equal Temperament, or other issues such as "vocal scales vs. piano, vs. other instruments and there temperaments" are precisely that... minor variations. I consider these variations to be content which should be part of one main article, unless there is plenty of information to content fork. Usually such musical acoustic issues can and should be discussed in 1 main article where everyone can work together! (ie.:Fa, Fa#, Fa##.... etc... are all notes with the common denominator of Fa. (It would be like having an article for A 440, then A 445 and all the infinite tunning possibilities... Everything else is WP:CFORK. --CyclePat (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Equating F-flat with "Fa" is simply wrong. Fixed solfege is only used in a few countries and clearly represents an anti-US bias. ... OK, maybe it doesn't, but it is relatively unused. For much of the world, "Fa" doesn't mean "F", it means the fourth degree of a major scale. Torc2 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - US bias? euh! Okay... (quizical look).. (I guess that's for your region!) As we say in french Quebec... `C'est pour ça qu'on veut se séparé!`... I've never really heard that before. I have heard of the french and english conflict in solfege being one of letters vs the solfege. For example, in english we sometimes solfege using the letters C D E F G A B, other times we use "Do re mi fa sol la si". In french however, we rarelly ever use the letters but use the latter Do re mi... furthermore, there is something with a moveable "do" where, instead of singing the scale of ré - mi - fa# -sol - la - si - do# we would sing the same scale but with do re mi fa... making fa the IV of the scale. Anyways, doesn't matter... all these interesting facts should be consolidated and merged into the same article. One reason for this is the fact that scales follow a patern... there are hundreds if not thousands of different paterns and examples. For example: If we where to use or talk about a cadence in the tonality of C major or "do majeur" (en bon francais) and placed some emphasis on the IV (pré-dominante) explaining that it is the chord of "Fa majeur" (in french) or "F major" (for you loyalist english) the english french translation means the same thing, it makes sense to have it all in the same article. I believe the only reason this article was created in the first place is because of the circle of fifth and it was called F-flat major. My understanding... sorry if I don't have any sources but only first hand experience since I live in Ottawa studied french and english music... (here is where we contradict each other) Fa means the same as F and should be noted within such an article (ie.: merged together and explained). Similarly, F-flat is the same as E and should be noted in the same article. This interesting conflict should be talked about in one article and not split into millions of different articles to prove a point or the respective POV. Plus what are we going to do with those dam fury scrolls and gregorian chants that use different methods of notation... one article that encompasses all of this would be excellent! --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        b.t.w.: We must be careful on the dis-ambiguation page of fa. --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For much of the world, "Fa" does not mean the same as F. That's your regional bias kicking in. Redirecting F to "Fa" makes as much sense as redirecting torch to flashlight, so redirecting F-flat to "Fa" would like redirecting arson to flashlight based on the idea that "torch" is a synonym for committing arson, and "torch" means "flashlight" in the UK. Torc2 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay! Well, I figure my experience would be good enought but here is a source. I'd direct you attention towards the wikipedia article called "solfege". Solfege#Fixed Do solfege compares both terms and places them at the same level. All my teachings and music books (pre-school to university appear to say the same thing)... but then again... I guess my prof's and those doctors in music, and history... God dam university degree in music... 25000 dollars latter, do you think they'll give me a refund... may have been wrong through their teachings of Western Music. --CyclePat (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time: Fixed Do is a regional system, not a universal system. I don't know how I can say that any more clearly. In much of the English-speaking world, "Fa" in D major means the note "G", for example; in A major it means the note D; in other words, the assumption that Fa is always F is wrong. Instead of pointing me at the Solfege article, why not read it? Specifically the Solfege#Movable Do solfege section, which gives the locations where "Fa" is not synonymous with "F". You could even amuse yourself with the section right above it, that says even in the Fixed Do system, "Fa" does not equal F-sharp or F-flat; it would be "Fi" for F-sharp, and there is no equivalent for F-flat. It makes no sense whatsoever to throw them into a single article and then explain why they're different when they are actually different things. And as long as we're going to pull out our musical degrees and wave them around like phalli, your degree is impressive, but I have a Ph.D. in music composition. So, how about focusing on the information itself rather than trying to bully people with your credentials? Torc2 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. We're practically saying the same thing! That's good that we agree on that! But, you realize that these notes are often, more than less, compared to each other. I think it's safe to say that the article is "currently" more focused on the tonality of "F flat major" instead of the musical note "F-flat".
        1. I personally think the F-flat (musical note), whether it be, as you claim "different things", (too which I do not completely agree), per the status quo should be linked with E Musical note.
        2. This covers what I believe is one issue... (musical notes). Now, for scales and musical notes. I think that C (musical note) and C major (tonality) could probably be consolidated to make one article that explains all these differences. Similarly in this case, E (musical note) and F-flat major, F-double flat minor, F minor harmonic, tonality, scales, F phrygian, etc... should be in one article. For example we could have C (music) with the paragraph headings: "Music note", "scales" (major, minor, etc.), "Harmonic equivalents", "alterations" (Cbb, Cb or C#, C##). One interesting precedence for this could be the article "electric bicycle" which is virtually the same thing (yet different) and has been merged to motorized bicycle. Furthermore, the article and any conflicts (or changes in Hz or etc... can be clearly explained as is the case with the article E (musical note).
        b.t.w.: I do humbly agree, and apologize in regards to the "in you face" manner of my previous statement regarding our qualifications. Our music degrees help us express in better terms what is happening... however, it really has nothing much to do with this subject, unless we want to pull out our old course notes and start using them as references. (Which in most cases, like an interview with someone (unless published), would probably not meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion). Sorry. p.s.: I do understand what you mean about F-sharp and Fa does not equal Fa... however I believe this is an interesting minority POV (which should be included in one merged article. I guess that's where we disagree, for now anyways! --CyclePat (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted, if it hasn't already, that while F-flat and E are the same in Equal Temperament, I think they are slightly different in Meantone temperament. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:We could also note Musical acoustics#Scales... which could be a top category... (asside: It would be interesting to see in a diagram how some subjects on Wiki forck out from their Common denominator! What is the common denominator in our case?) --CyclePat (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all musical notes are per se notable. Well-sourced and likely to be researched by students. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (humorously) Sounds like a puny to me! notable notes! lol ;) My favourite note is Ré### or Mi# sometimes called Fa or Gbb or sol double bémol... Sometimes I like to modulate a piece and with the dominent of the dominent and so on! But no mater how you right it... whether it's in the treble clef and or the the clée d'Ut or some gregorian notation, or 1 octave lower, or 1 octave higher, at X hz or 2X hz, it's always going to have one thing in common... it's always going to be an alteration of a given basic notation which is "C D E F G A B". Surelly notable... but surelly something... and I say this one last time... that can be merged to make one nice article instead of 300 thousands POV's. -CyclePat (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would possibly be valid, but there's no legitimate reason whatsoever to delete. Merging is a discussion for talk pages or, since you might be dealing with a wide range of pages, the WikiProject level, with appropriate notification at the pages being discussed. Not a discussion for AFD at any rate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaar[edit]

This article establishes no notability (WP:FICTION) through reliable sourcing (WP:RS) and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition (WP:WAF), and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My goodness! How popular does a topic have to be to survive around here? Chaar is the Decepticon base of operations in Season 3 and 4 of The Transformers (TV series) and, as such, is the most notable fictional planet in the Transformers universe after Cybertron. Episodes featuring Chaar were viewed by millions of people in dozens of countries and languages. I support the deletion of articles with limited or primarily local appeal, but The Transformers is clearly notable on an international scale. I dread to think how many articles will be left if every article this notable is deleted! DOSGuy (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fame and popularity are not criteria for Wikipedia, and as such your argument is fundamentally flawed. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, what are required are multiple published works from reliable and independent sources that document the subject in depth. This is what the nominator has stated in the nomination does not exist. Your flawed argument does not disprove xyr assertion. To disprove xyr assertion, simply cite some reliable and independent sources that document this subject in depth, to demonstrate that it is possible to write a verifiable and neutral article free from original research on this topic. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article on 'fictional planet' in the Transformers series! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it" isn't the best of all possible arguments :-) Hobit (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The fictional planets in every other popular series have articles. It deserves an article if it is a topic of broad interest, which the Transformers certainly have. DOSGuy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article about Transformers planets. JIP | Talk 11:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marge, but I've no idea where. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, it has no function in an encyclopedia. And btw: it's only in-universe so there is nothing to merge as far as I can see. Greswik (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. JJL (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Transformers has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Shaman[edit]

The issue is notability: although the originator is the subject, the article is not written in a promotional way. I gave it a speedy A7 tag; he responded with {{hangon}}, and we had a conversation about notability on the article's talk page, as a result of which I decided to bring it here for more time and more views. The only sources in the article are the subject's web-site and MySpace; Google produces some gallery sites showing his work, but I don't know that world well enough to know if they can be counted as independent sources.JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Um, what is your reason? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

It got lost somehow in the nomination process: I've added it above. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:RS. I couldn't find anything verifiable, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can scan and send you newspaper cuttings from an exhibition where I was the advertised artist-in-residence as well as magazine covers. I can see your point of view with the web presence as a lot of my work has been published 'underground' and is fairly inaccessable - even I do not have copies of everything that's been independently published, sometimes without my permission. My work with David Icke can be found here: http://www.davidickewasright.com/ I also have produced many one-off commissions for noteable musicians but I try not to advertise this fact for privacy reasons. I understand if this is not yet enough to warrant a wikipedia entry, though undoubtedly one will have to be created in the near future as I gather together more verifiable sources. It just seems a shame to delete it, though as I say I would understand if that's the case. Warm regards. --Merlinamagus (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've searched around on-line and can't find anything satisfying WP:RS to satisfy the the notability criterion of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. If some appear here, please let me know & I'll modify my opinion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is this discussion? No-one has answered my question above as to submitting sources of notability. I have to say I'm a pretty intuitive person and I can tell the direction of the flow so no worries about deleting the entry. Many thanks for searching for notable articles. Warm regards, Ciaran. --Merlinamagus (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy plus[edit]

Fails Notability (organizations and companies) because it lacks multiple, agreeing & reliable sources. There are few to begin with, and there is disagreement between them over membership in this vague group. Specifically UChicago[4], Oxford, Univ SoCal[5], and Cambridge are mentioned in some sources, not others. Still other sources refer to this as a group of alumni clubs in large East Coast cities, while others treat it as a simple way to refer to the Ivy League schools + Stanford & MIT ([6], [7] or [8]) Either way, it is nebulous, undefined, unreferenced & lacks an actual organization. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't have to be an established organization. If it's just a phrase that has gained reasonably widespread use, then it's a keeper. Otherwise, it could be deleted as a neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Brusegadi (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept clearly does exist, and is well sourced as demonstrated by the nominator. The nomination seems to be based on the fact that references disagree on the precise definition of the subject. If that's to be a reason for deletion then we should be seeing an AfD for God soon. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Each 'definition' of God covered in the God article (my definition is not covered) seems to be notable in its own right (that is why my definition is not covered) whereas each definition of Ivy Plus is NOT notable in its own right. Brusegadi (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inconsistency isn't the only problem. This seems to be a neologism or simply a casual, shorthand term that has been misinterpreted by the authors of the article to denote a set group. The inconsistency in usage seems to indicate that a variety of sources happen to use the sequence of words "Ivy plus," without any evidence that they all intend it to refer to the single group this article purports to be about. Dylan (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Universities has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to EastEnders#Setting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Walford Gazette[edit]

Non-notable fictional newspaper. D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to EastEnders#Setting, a sentence on this fictional newspaper would fit in with the fictional postcode and tube station described there. --Stormie (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stormie. Lacks real-world notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stormie. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add sentence about paper to EastEnders#Setting per Stormie. Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Dare to Be Scared[edit]

No evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books), also fails WP:NOT#PLOT, was tagged as undercontruction for over a month, and the article wasn't improved Delete Secret ^account 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, check also [9]: author seems speedied, due to no context! This book googles rather well, however, but this "article" is only a plot summarie- it is not even a start as an article, IMHO. Greswik (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Geoffrey Gates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormie (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 January 2008

A Ticket for Perpetual Locomotion[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This article went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in August 2006 and has improved somewhat since then (see diff between PROD'd versions). However, the novel that is the subject of the article still suffers from a lack of notability. As the recent PROD nominator stated "Covered by Geoffrey Gates, not notable enough for a separate article." My recommendation: redirect to the author's article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geoffrey Gates, I'd say "merge and redirect" except there's already more about the novel in the author's article than in the novel's one. The article hasn't improved since being PROD'ded - it has clearly attracted some maintenence efforts (categorization, stub sorting, etc.), but zero new content. This is precisely why articles like this are better off merged, every article, no matter how tiny, requires maintenence as Wikipedia style and standards shift. --Stormie (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was the recent nominator -- didn't realize then that redirection as an alternative to AfD doesn't require discussion, or I would have done so to begin with. Shall we do so and speedily close this? Jfire (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morad Kaveh[edit]

Speedy A7 was declined without explanation. No assertion of notability other than the fact "he's famous". Looking at this singer's personal site, I can't find much more of a notability assertion there either. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion nor evidence of notability - I would have speedied it personally, but since User:Iridescent declined that, I'll let this AfD run its course. --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His website says he "has worked with many famous musicians and singers." Okay, no. Delete -Freekee (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He gets about 1,500 ghits. He may have worked with other Kurdish musicians, so it needs to be treated differently as though it were a standard rock band or something. Still, weak delete, I don't see much here in terms of reliable sources on Google.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macfoy family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

Article about non-natable topic, few sources indicating notability, names metioned are unsourced. Pointless page. Page was deleted once before (nothing new indicating significance of subject added) — Ranket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - no reliable sources that are about the family. There is some indication that there might be some notability for individual members. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Jmlk 1 7 09:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Kathleen Connor[edit]

This page has already been created and speedily deleted once. Looking at this page it appears identical to what I recall was the previous page. There are what appear to be refs, but one is clearly just the organizatin that this person supposedly operates, others would not illustrate notability anyway, and given that not a single one of them are linked to a viewable page or complete with regards to their information, plus a lack of any inline referencing it is impossible to determine what statements in the article, if any, are actually supported by these "references." This whole thing just seems like a personal advertisement. Since this person insists on recreating their article a salt may be warranted as well. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the log with the page's previous deletion: [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni Ookami Alfador (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per G4. Take a look at the bottom of the page; that "category list" looks like a cut and paste minus the Wiki-specific markups. RGTraynor 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last version was speedied, so G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is a crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:UGLY. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notabilty. And in fact, no strong claim to notability in the article. Also looks to be a profile-raising (biography spamming) effort for MindMoves StudyBuddy Accelerated Learning System. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Edwards[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: There is nothing notable about a person who has not won a primary. The person is a lobbyist and not an activist and the page therefore is in horrible shape and is political propaganda. Request reopening AfD. (Notice: this notice was inserted directly into the article with an AFD-template by Insidertracker earlier today, I somehow got the impression the discussion had just been closed and he disagreed with it, so I reverted the edit and sent him to WP:DRV. I'm finishing the nomination for him now instead. Previous nomination ended with no consensus, 11. july 2007. I personally have no meaning about this subject.) Greswik (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability and sources. The links provided, an outside wiki, the candidate's homepage, and two foundations with which the subject has been involved, don't provide enough reliable information to support an article, nor do they prove that the subject is notable beyond being a candidate for office - which isn't enough. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Well ... with a Washington Post endorsement and having lost the previous primary by a razor's edge, you can't quite call this a fringe candidate. If she wasn't running again in November I'd vote Delete, but there's going to be ongoing notability here. I'm curious as to why nom both claims to be neutral on the subject while both asserting that she's a lobbyist not an activist (err, NPOV does imply that the premise that activist = Good, lobbyist = eViL!, however much widely held, is irrelevant here) That some (by no means all) of the article looks like propaganda is a content dispute, and can safely be edited out; that doesn't make it AfD-worthy. Ravenswing 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearifyed it is an procedural nomination now. Those were not my words, I just brought them here. The "real" nom has !voted some lines belove. Greswik (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With regards to her only being keepable because she's running again, note that notability is not temporary. Even so, she has clearly been covered by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is indeed not temporary, but is also not garnered by a single failed run in a primary race. Ravenswing 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As with Ravenswing, the WAPO endorsement carries a fair amount of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Donna Edwards is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ravenswing Will ^(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Edwards or her supporters made the article about herself. This violates wikipedia policy. The Washington Post did not endorse her for the 2008 primary. And a political endorsement from a failed primary does not make someone notable. The article remains poorly sourced. If she wins the primary and the main election, then maybe consider recreating. But for now, she lost by more than 2,000 votes in 2006. A failed lobbyist bid for elected office is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidertracker (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not inherently notable, no, which takes us away from WP:BIO over to its parent, WP:N. She has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable, third party sources independent of her. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Ultra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lciaccio (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarcasticidealist, but the page needs some work. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schnee139, I edited the page to remove bias and to make the information more clear. The page is relevant as Ms. Edwards is challenging Al Wynn a second time. 7 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.54.252 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Insidertracker, Page is in poor shape without references. Edited and added CQ Politics reference about the ARCA foundation. This piece is still political propaganda and unbalanced. It will be interesting to see if the community lets proper sources such as CQ politics remain in the article. 9 January 2008 —Preceding Insidertracker comment added by Insidertracker (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no reason why reliable sources should not be in the article ... but it would have been even more interesting if their quotes weren't selectively edited, as that CQ cite was. Ravenswing 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo (Spice Girls Song)[edit]

Contested prod - prod tag removed without explanation or improvements. Unsourced speculation, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Note that Voodoo (Spice Girls song) (with different capitalisation) redirects to the album that the song is on. Dawn bard (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Not yet announced. The redirect will need to get deleted too. D.M.N. (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) - I don't get the WP:CRYSTAL argument; this track already has been released on the GH album. The statement about it being released as a single is unsourced speculation, but the song itself actually does exist. Torc2 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have a source to support your statement? Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously? Um, the Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) article has a few, Amazon has a track list. What kind of proof were you looking for? Torc2 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any Showbiz website sources to do with this song. If not, its almost certainly not-notable. D.M.N. (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In responce to Torc2's question, it's WP:CRYSTAL because no sources have stated that the song is a single. Until it has been verified as a single, I say merge and redirect to the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue of article content. The solution to that is to remove the line, not to delete the entire article. Listing the article under AfD and citing WP:CRYSTAL is saying that the song itself does not exist and its future creation is speculation. Torc2 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to album --T-rex 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, article is already listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Next Door Arctic Base[edit]

Fictional non-notable location to be deleted in association with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door. treelo _talk 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD does not need to be created. When the other discussion ends, this article will automatically be deleted as they are included in the AFD together. D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Nixon McGarfield[edit]

Non-notable character in-universe and out of universe. treelo _talk 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore The author of this article has chosen to merge the content into another article and they or another editor will request a speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#G7. As such I'm requesting the disregard of this nomination. --treelo _talk 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door as content has been merged there. Unnotable, minor character that only appears in 3 episodes plainly fails WP:FICT for having his own article.Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Lacrosse and Soccer Stadium[edit]

Non-notable college stadium of no great size, no importance/notability asserted. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's the home pitch of a D1 soccer team. That's notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If all stadiums located in this template are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then this article on the same subject matter should be. The only red-link in that template should probably be created as an article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Home of a D1 team, that means it is a notable stadium. -Djsasso (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the venue of the Virginia Tech D1 soccer team is an assertion of notability. The nom is using a WP:NOTBIGENOUGH argument. --Oakshade (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less concerned with the size than with the fact that this is a two line article on a venue built only five years ago. There isn't much to say about it. Perhaps a merger to the soccer team article, with a redirect? Brianyoumans (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should really maintain it's own article. Expansion could be done with notable events to happen at the stadium, proper construction history, etc. matt91486 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A venue could be built five days ago and still be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn - Redfarmer (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. McGaha[edit]

Non-notable person. Only claim to notability is that he won the Medal of Honor. Creator removed prod without comment. Redfarmer (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, I did not remove a prod tag. I removed a {{notability}} tag which said "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability", which I felt I had done. The Medal of Honor is the United States military's highest decoration, and I believe that being a recipient of the medal makes one sufficiently notable. There are numerous reliable, secondary sources which cover this guy, and I will continue to add these references if given the time (the article is only an hour old). jwillbur 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote your secondary sources? I'm specifically concerned about this criteria from WP:BIO:

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Redfarmer (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:MIL notability guidelines. If he's a Medal of Honor winner (verified by the .mil reference) there are other secondary sources out there. It's just a matter of locating and improving the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. That does make it very clear. Withdrawing. Redfarmer (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn - Redfarmer (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Work Disappears[edit]

Non-notable book. Few Ghits actually related to this book other than Amazon. Fails to assert notability. Redfarmer (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a huge book and made a big impact I'm still working on this article. Could use some help. futurebird (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind the notability requirements at WP:BK, could you quote sources confirming the books notability please? Redfarmer (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt from his new book, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor, has made the cover of The New York Times Magazine. Other accolades, including an admiring profile in the New Yorker, are stacking up...[11]

Sounds notable to me. futurebird (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That does seem to make it a little notable. I'll withdraw the nomination and give you some more time to work on it. Redfarmer (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Philippe, non-admin closure . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Kid Tommy[edit]

No assertion of notability. Ghits only to various Myspace and Youtube pages. Redfarmer (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I placed a speedy on it; I think A1 criteria applies here, as it provides very little context other than it being about a movie. Also, the issues per WP:FILM and WP:RS. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcides Moreno[edit]

Living person notable for only one not so notable 'miracle' (falling from the 47th floor and living) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'll never understand why an incredible event like this isn't noteworthy. Every single player on the Washington Wizards has their own wikipedia entries with information down to who they're dating... but a man who falls 47 floors and survives doesn't deserve a short page about the incident? That's embarrassing and I think this is a good opportunity to, maybe just for a moment, raise the standard. This isn't an article about miracles, where they come from, or what they mean... just about a guy who defied disastrous odds and could still be talked about years later. This would a good article for other articles to link to, as long as an encylcopedia is allowed to contain more than just well known information. Don't shoot it down just because it's not important to you personally. Neo aa (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, WP:NOT. If having an accident made you notable, most everyone in the world would have their own article at one time or another. Redfarmer (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know anybody else had a 47 story "accident?" Guy didn't trip over a shoelace... he had an impact in to the ground from 500 feet up. If "everyone in the world" has experienced this, I'll completely concede to your point. Neo aa (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I don't know anyone other than myself who's delivered a baby, performed in Boston's Symphony Hall and authored a Scarlet Pimpernel concordance. Doesn't make me notable either. Delete as failing WP:BIO and, as much as anything else, WP:BLP1E. To quote: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Ravenswing 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thats not the point. It is not notable enough to satisfy inclusion into this encyclopedia. It made news, for what, one day. Its not like a huge breaking news story, its just a trivial little thing which, in my opinion, has been blown entirely out of proportion. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ravenswing and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is very clear on this point. This is not a news blog, encyclopedic notability is quite different. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia routinely reports news events - just see the home page which has a section for breaking news. The point of WP:BLP1E is that there should usually only be one article on such a matter - not a separate bio article too. But in this case, this seems to be the one article. The matter got widespread coverage in national newspapers across the world and there has been followup coverage too. If major newspapers find the matter notable then it is, by definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT#NEWS. Notability is not established by being in the news for a brief period. Redfarmer (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've got an article about Vesna Vulović, whose only claim to fame is falling a great distance and surviving, so why not Alcides Moreno? Falling 47 stories and surviving seems pretty darned notable to me. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't achieve notability for an article by pointing to another article, though. Besides, what makes that subject notable is coverage in the Guinness Book of World Records. If they weren't in that book, they probably wouldn't achieve notability. Redfarmer (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has the potential to be notable for the unprecedented surgeries he underwent. If is it must be deleted, at least redirect and merge into window cleaner. Btyner (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To understand why this doesn't belong here is to understand the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falling out a window doesn't make you notable, even if you survive. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Plenty of news coverage (in the US and internationally), but no real long-term notability... yet - per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Definitely appropriate for Wikinews.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In future, many people may fall from the 47th floor and survive! Should we create articles for all of them? This article is difficulty to categorize. This type of articles are not suitable for a global encyclopedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since nobody before has ever fallen and survived from anywhere near this height, it is notable, and if will remain notable as the first even if others do later. There may eventually be thousands of people who walk on the moon, but it won't make Neil Armstrong the less notable.DGG (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moreno isn't remotely close to the record there; Vesna Vulocic is cited above, and there was also Nick Alkemade during WWII. Ravenswing 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. Surviving a fall of 47 stories IS EXTREMELY NOTABLE. Rare of rare events. All "other freefall survivors" referenced on the Vesna Vulović page were distinct from this one in that they fell in environments that contributed to their survival through something external that cushioned their landing. Alcides Moreno fell 500 feet onto asphalt and/or concrete in an urban environment. Surviving this fall is clearly unique enough to note. Additionally noteworthy about this article is that his survival involved following training that may be of significant use for the safety of others, notably landing "without striking his head" and "'he knew what to do with the platform'— meaning, according to other window washers, lie flat and ride it down." Reference:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/nyregion/04fall.html?em&ex=1199595600&en=a6cd1e14f02e1178&ei=5087%0A Palladeus — Palladeus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per HisSpaceResearch. D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The profoundly unusual survival of this man, despite what he experienced, not only makes the article noteworthy (and encyclopedic) at this time, but will keep it that way for many, many years. —Catdude (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable event, national coverage. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. --VS ^talk 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NWOBHM artists[edit]

New Wave of British Heavy Metal is just a term for a period of heavy metal. There is already a category for British heavy metal groups, a list isn't needed to document British heavy metal bands from a certain time. Funeral 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my view a list like this is a load of cruft. D.M.N. (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New Wave of British Heavy Metal. A simple two-column section would be enough to contain this short list. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant through WP:CATEGORY. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Wave of British Heavy Metal (includes redirection). I think that some of the sources in the NWoBHM article could be used as support for at least some line items in the list, and the list is not so long (particular with the 2-col suggestion) as to bloat the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close (though not that speedy)...WP:RFD is the second door on the left. — Scientizzle 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Match Attax Cards[edit]

Listcruft: just a list of Premier League Football related trading cards, no assertion of notability or context Mr Senseless (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect. I think you may of wanted to nominate Match Attax for deletion maybe; or maybe discuss this at WP:RFD. This should be Speedy Closed as a result. D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj Cammy

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

The result was Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Cammy[edit]

Non notable DJ, fails WP:MUSIC Mr Senseless (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete if not speedy; not only an utter failure of WP:MUSIC, but quite poorly written as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: marginal G1. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redfarmer (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having read through the article and WP:MUSIC, this DJ doesn't seem to meet the criteria, unless some very good sources can be found and the article cleaned up. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any chance of this being a hoax? D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent and I don't see any real claim of notability here, so I've put an A7 tag on it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, nobody expressing a wish to delete. --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sand county foundation[edit]

~~Very detailed article about a non-profit, however, it reads like blatant advertising and does not assert notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw/Speedy Close Much improved since when I originally taged it. I agree I probabally should have waited longer before nominating but in its first form I felt like it was bordering on a G11 candidate. Sorry guys, when to nominate for deletion is something I'm still working on. :( Mr Senseless (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we should give this article a chance. I think it needs a good cleanup and possibly a few more references to make it meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If the article hasn't been improved in a month or two, I would recommend renominating it here. D.M.N. (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Article was nominated 5 minutes after creation, which is not enough time to know what it will be in its final form -- and indeed, it has been since worked on extensively (including, I note, assertions of notability). Keep for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nightmare on elm street prequel[edit]

There has been no reliable source confirming this film's development for creation. Regardless, per WP:FILM, this would be included at the franchise article, as it would only be in the talk phase. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR...just about anything you can think of given the fact that there are no sources to confirm a single sentence or word on the page (except maybe who will distribute it and what film it follows). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nevermind that the title breaks naming convention. I wouldn't merge or redirect it until some sort of confirmation is given that the film is more than just rumor. Delete it for now. Yng varr 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails just about every acid test of Wikipedia articles; no reliable sources, no context, no verifiable content... yeah. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. WP:CRYSTAL is the obvious one to go for here, but this isn't really an article, it's a sentance. As I say to all crystal-balling: if and when it comes out, write the article then. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. Paul 730 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FILM, etc. Even if this might become a film, there’s not enough information to warrant a whole article dedicated to it. —Travis ^talk 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and probable hoax. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-ball-ism, zero content, incorectly capitalized, there's nothing right about this article. --Stormie (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Pigman☿ 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh 2008[edit]

Reads like a flyer for a forthcoming conference. May or may not be notable in due course - violates WP:CRYSTAL at present. Suggest merging into one of the many articles related to the Orthodontic Technicians Association. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizations hold conferences, this is expected and not normally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a whole bunch of these recently created in Category:Orthodontic Technicians Association Conferences, all of which could (and probably should) be easily merged into a one-page article. It might be worth adding them here, too. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, please. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - see below. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of similar articles[edit]

These can - and should - all be deleted - almost all the information is already listed at Orthodontic Technicians Association Conference in the form of a handy, easy-to-read table - anyone searching for information about a particular year is as likely to visit the main conference article anyway. As pointed out by Dhartung, above, loads of organisations hold annual conferences, and an association which apparently has a fairly small membership (312, according to the parent article) and of limited notability certainly doesn't need separate articles for each of its its annual conferences. A camparison could be drawn with the likes of the English Royal College of Surgeons, which has been around slightly longer than the OTA (nearer 370 years than 37), has a considerably larger membership, and is far more widely known. Wikipedia does not have separate articles for its annual conferences. BTW, each and every one of these articles carries the association's copyrighted logo as part of the article - a big no-no. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above Orthodontic Technicians Association Conference "articles" have since been redirected to Orthodontic Technicians Association Conference, which would therefore seem to be outside of the scope of this AfD. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I also suspected some other articles in this template should be deleted too. D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, as above. Axl (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Barely notable, advertising and poorly named. They merit nothing more than a mention on the organisation's page. The page itself is prominently linked on their web page [12], as if they don't provide the same information there, so it all looks very like an exercise in vanity publishing and advertising. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the author's of the OTA pages, I am happy for the individual conference pages to be deleted and would like to apologise for any offence caused by creating these articles. I was unaware that there was limits on pages that could be created. I will change the excess pages into redirect pages as I don't know how to delete them.

No offence taken, really. You should perhaps read Wikipedia's page on contributing your first article for an introduction. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestling fan names[edit]

This article, comprised entirely of original research, is on a non-notable subject that has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Certainly not encyclopaedic enough to merit an article in its own right. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a member of WP:PW; this doesn't even come close to notable. D.M.N. (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per D.M.N. Feedback ^☎ 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Nikki311 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted, and they're completely right for reasons already listed here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, spam. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why was it even created? Jordan Morrison Payne 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable article that's frankly a waste of space. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. iMatthew (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers, L A X 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk shows in pro Wrestling[edit]

There is no evidence that pro wrestling talk shows, as a whole, are a notable subject. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Listcruft. Nikki311 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NN. Good god, how trivial can you get? Err ... none of these are "talk shows." They are/were all segments in the wrestling shows. RGTraynor 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crap, spam, nonsense. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above Jordan Morrison Payne —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers, L A X 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Arts Press (BAP)[edit]

Non-notable publisher. Less than twenty Ghits, most of which are from Myspace pages of people whose books they publish and web sites of said authors, as well as the official web site. Redfarmer (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no indication the subject of this article is notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought about taking this to AfD for the same reasons, but thought give it a few hours first. You just confirmed my initial hunch. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but next time lets try a Prod on an article that is 5 minutes old first. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly, but my rule of thumb for PROD is that the article needs to have had no significant edits in a couple of weeks or longer, and the creator needs to ahve been absent about as long. Otherwise it's a waste of time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish phrases[edit]

Lists of common phrases, ei tourist phrases, are not encyclopedic content per Wikipeda not being a dictionary. There used to be a common article called list of common phrases in various languages, but it was deleted and transwikied last year. The deletion was reviewed and the decision upheld in July 2007.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki anything appropriate and delete. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. I wonder what the consensus is regarding transwiking content to non-Wikimedia wikis? I would guess that it has probably been done to Wikia wikis in the case of fancruft before...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel isn't but Wikibooks is. Follow the link in the motivation to see where the main list was moved. Peter ^Isotalo 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not appropriate. Axl (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My hovercraft is full of eels. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{Copy to Wiktionary}} added --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achill Rovers[edit]

Non-notable non professional football team. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GCF. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. And why exactly is every word capitalised? Sheesh. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, spam, no source. Delete! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted if someone wants to have a page about their football team let them. [[[johnversa08]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnversa08 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sorry mate, but the article isn't notable enough to satisfy inclusion onto Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N BanRay 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no sources, appears to be a children's hence very non-notable team. Peanut4 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Retard[edit]

No obvious notability. PROD was added, but removed by article creator within a few minutes without explaining why the article was notable. No references or sources. CultureDrone (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, Banned in Germany is not a valid assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The site carries a surprisingly high Alexa rank (51,000), but it is certainly unreferenced and fails WP:V, possibly WP:WEB as well, and after glancing at just one of the "comics," I'm not going out of my way to search sources out for such a disgusting heap of tripe. RGTraynor 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable sources from a Google search, just mainly blogs and forums. "Banned in Germany" assertion is not sourced. I had a look at the website - seems pretty sick, but that's nothing to do with notability. However it looks non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best it could be cited in an article about subjects which are banned in Germany, if such a ban could be verified. It's not entitled to an article in it's own right under WP:WEB and WP:V. Xdenizen (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --VS ^talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postbeat Poets[edit]

Not sure about this one, never heard of this concept before. It reads like an essay and is completely unsourced, so I'm inclined to think it violates WP:NOR, as well as WP:V and possibly WP:N. Google only turns up 40 hits, only one or two are actually related to the topic. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in progress...was gonna finish before I saved but power glitch caused early save(?) Having trouble with refs linking so I manually inserted until I work out bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR essay not grounded in sources. There is no set definition of "post-beat" -- some of the most prominent uses have been for people like Bob Dylan and Patti Smith but the article glosses over this. There is now a self-defined "community" using the terminology but this seems to use in-universe descriptions. This would have to be substantially rewritten to be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should give this article a chance. I think it needs a good cleanup and possibly a few more references to make it meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If the article hasn't been improved in a month or two, I would recommend renominating it here. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per D.M.N. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it...just please don't delete it. you deleted my first attempt without giving me a chance to remedy the problems and this is a lot of work for a newbee. I'm taking out the opinion and hunting for more links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's promising, Jimcohn. At a first glance it is already somewhat improved. But there are very many statements that need references. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is the definition of "in-universe descriptions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired by our guideline for writing about fiction, which is not precisely applicable here. Essentially you shouldn't write from too far within a subject. The way I used it, I meant that there seems to be an insular point of view about what postbeat means. The guideline that actually applies is neutral point of view. Make sure that you are drawing references from major mainstream critics, not just those within the movement. As an encyclopedia, we are not here to tell the insider story, but rather to give an unfamiliar person context. Just as one central example, on whose authority is The Outlaw Bible such a central work to the movement? And are there other opinions of it? --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Senseless, when I google "post-beat poets I see "about 476,000"Jimcohn (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal recommendation would be a move to Post-beat. The "poets" is unnecessary and wrongly suggests a biographical (rather than textual) approach, and the version with the hyphen seems to be used in more formal sources. Also, we don't capitalize every word in a title unless it's a proper name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in progress, and appears to be improving. Photo is a likely copyvio though. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I do think there's a fair bit of original research in this article though.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, we can improve this article. I think the article should not be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

Our thanks to you who are taking a serious look at our page and assisting us in making it useful to your viewers. That’s our goal too. We took in your feedback in over the weekend regarding source and citation and language and made a number of substantial changes to our entry, not the least of which was establishing, in short order, a clear scholarly trail from which this new field of poetics study is derived. This is the finished entry we wish to submit and we think it’s appropriate that it be published with Wikipedia as it is an underlooked cultural phenomena and not just an in-universe advertisement. Because we are new to this, please let us know if there is anything else we need to do. One thing we’d like more ordinary language information on is your licensing agreement and what is literally needed to get up the images we would like to use. Best to you all. JC Jimcohn (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment I'm a little concerned about this "we" you are referring to. You wouldn't, by any chance, be writing the article on behalf of the poets mentioned in the article, would you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

~~Actually, I see your own article Jim Cohn has been flagged for WP:AUTO, so I see the answer is likely yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

"Jim Cohn... to name just a few Postbeat master poets with bodies of work deserving of serious study." Jim Cohn wrote that. He also created the article on himself which is now in the process of being voted for deletion. The whole thing smacks of WP:COATRACK and WP:COI, trying to tie himself and his colleagues to the notability of the Beats. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Furthermore, in addition to the article on himself and the movement he claims to be a "master" within, Mr. Cohn has also created an article on his museum, which has since been deleted: The Museum of American Poetics.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the above comments per WP:AGF.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Jim Cohn wrote that." In fact, it was written by "Jimcohn." Are you suggesting that these are one and the same? Jimcohn (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was precisely my assumption. The editor who was creating all these articles about Jim Cohn was Jim Cohn. I take it from your comments on my Talk page that you claim not to be. Fair enough, WP:AGF requires me to take you at your word. However, please allow me to point out that a) if you are not Jim Cohn and b) you feel Jim Cohn is encyclopedically notable, you are in violation of WP:U, which states It is not permitted to edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless either (1) you are that person, or (2) you aren't that person, but it is your real name, and you make it clear that you are not that person. ~~Regardless, my deletion votes are unchanged.~~ Your decision to call yourself Jim Cohn and then set about creating all these Jim Cohn-related articles was not a wise one, IMO. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've blanked the Jim Cohn article. I'll change my vote here to Neutral, and let others decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significantly improved.HOUSE OF PAINE (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) - — HOUSE OF PAINE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question to the above editor On my Talk page, User:Jimcohn denied that he was Jim Cohn, signing his post as "Lewie Paine." See diff. The above vote to keep is from User:HOUSE OF PAINE. Is this the same editor, perhaps editing under a different name to comply with WP:U? I'd like you to be clear on that, for accuracy's sake and to avoid any appearance of sock-puppetry on your part. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a Google search reveals that this is the same person. See his Web site. Mr. Paine, there is a way to correctly change your name, per WP:UNC. What have you done here, voting under a different name in a nomination for deletion on an article you have created and argued in favour of as User:Jimcohn could be construed as a violation of WP:SOCK, though I am sure that was not your intention. But please be more careful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lissandrew (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC) - If a lay user may have a say, it would dismay me greatly were this informative article to be deleted because people remain underinformed with respect to Postbeat poetics. I am thrilled to find this article on the Postbeats, an article whose shortfalls are far less pronounced than those of many other Wikipedia articles, and an article that attempts to begin to chronicle a movement in need of a voice. The purpose of the article is to inform readers of a compelling niche within the international poetic movement, a niche whose intellectual antecedents can be traced to Allen Ginsberg himself. I strongly suggest that those who would see the masses of the world denied this edifying article take the time to familiarize themselves with the poets mentioned in the article, their histories, and the unique relationships, both artistic and personal, that they share (or shared) with one another. Why anyone would see the world denied knowledge of a movement that, by its nature, lacks much in the way of official chroniclers of its history is a mystery to me. The ability to chronicle just such a history is what makes Wikipedia most valuable in this age when even academic presses will not print what is merely true, but only what is both true and lucrative. I strongly encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of this article.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to album page. PeaceNT (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Get Blown Away"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/"Get Blown Away"

"Get Blown Away" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC. Article says only reason for notoriety is that it is a "fan favorite" at concerts and admits it was never issued as a single. Only Ghits are for lyrics and guitar tab pages. Redfarmer (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:MUSIC, doesn't stand on its own. Redirect per "Albums and songs" section of WP:MUSIC - "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article". Don't see the harm in pointing this to the album it came from TheBilly (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TheBilly. Non-notable song from notable album and notable band. Booglamay (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be 'blown away'! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep Article is a stub and may be improved upon. Does contain info (cover version) not appropriate for album article. According to that article the album has sold 1.5m copies. Upgraded to Keep after fixing links. Song is notable because of current revival. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Marchin' Already. --neonwhite user page talk 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or Redir to Album per above. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Petoskey to Prague[edit]

From Petoskey to Prague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book from recently Afd'd author. Unable to find any significant reviews under either title. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is shown. This probably yet another story how an adventurous American dared to go to the Wild East. Quite a few were written during the 1990s and they read almost the same - it is cheap over there, the people are sex crazy and to spice the story mafia is mixed in. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources, and if the author's not notable, there's a good chance the book's not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This type of article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haze Lee Finn[edit]

Haze Lee Finn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

DELETE per WP:Bio. His bands notablity is questionable. EndlessDan 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created in May 2007 and it's still only one sentence. That does nothing to assert notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no content, no assertion of notability, not sure that The Pop Culture Suicides shouldn't be nominated as well, they don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This biography has only one sentence. Maybe after nine mouths, another sentence will be added to the article! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Masterpiece2000. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SecurDisc[edit]

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

No references, written like an advertisement, no overt assertion of notability --- lots of G hits, because "Securdisk" occurs in the part numbers and brochures of lots of drives --- but no news coverage, no ArsTechnica "how this thing works" articles, no Tom's Hardware mentions; I'm a security practitioner and this stuff has never come up. Disputed PROD. --- tqbf 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Redfarmer (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~- G11~~ ~~Blatant~~ advertising, no secondary sources, no need to send this through AfD. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the advertising has been removed, but the article is still unsourced, with no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep No comment Mr_KC (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be kept? Please elaborate. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait just a minute, there... Delete because there is "no reference"? This is not an article about an epic battle of the middle ages. This is about a PRODUCT, which is made by a COMPANY. Everything being stated in this article, which has been elaborated by the other contributors, seems to match what can be found on the net. Is simply common knowledge about the product itself. I mean, come on like one have to cite a refference when saying "iPod is a digital music player" or "Windows is an Operating System". I say this article should be kept. --Pinnecco (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All articles in Wikipedia must be notable. Subjects are notable when reliable sources that are independent of the subject write about them. That's not an opinion; it's Wikipedia policy. I know it's stressful to write an article on a company and see it get deleted, but I couldn't find any reliable sources writing about "SecurDisk". What makes it notable? Maybe if you explain that, we'll be able to track down a source to verify it. --- tqbf 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll start marking for deletion articles the articles for Nero Burning ROM, Easy CD Creator, Windows XP and so forth. You want references? Why don't you then help with the article and add the SecurDisc website as the source, instead of just marking the article to be deleted? My opinion stands: keep the article: it is getting good and will improve with time. --Pinnecco (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try a different tack? Instead of me trying to convince you to vote "delete", can you tell us what's interesting about SecurDisk? What makes SecurDisk notable? It was the fact that I couldn't find any references to what SecurDisk was or what made it special that motivated me to put it up for deletion. I could be convinced in the other direction. --- tqbf 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me, this doesn't read like an advertisement - there are equally leveled pages for other encryption software such as CrossCrypt and BestCrypt (to name just two); perhaps if the consensus is to delete this article then someone could consider merging the details into Comparison of disk encryption software before it goes. Interesting, 15 of the encryption software solutions listed on that page have their own article page - if we delete this one, then surely we should delete them all. Kavanagh21 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll check those articles out next, and if they have no discernable notability, we'll see them on AfD soon too. --- tqbf 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CrossCrypt has a HEISE.DE download link and nothing else I can find. CrossCrypt may merit an AfD.

BestCrypt has a ton of references, in PC World, the Chicago Tribune, and InfoWeek. The difference between BestCrypt and SecurDisc seems to be the difference between a notable disk encryption product and a non-notable disk encryption product. --- tqbf 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is about a relevant technology. On the other hand, it is partly written in an advertising style ("provides secure data protection...", while every data protection can be broken).147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Can you create an account? It takes no time, doesn't require your email address, and will actually gain you privacy.

You say SecurDisc is a relevant technology. You're the second person to say that. I don't want the article deleted if the technology is relevant; can you point us to a reliable source that says that SecurDisc is relevant? I'll change my vote immediately. Thanks! --- tqbf 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the account, you are probably right.

SecurDisc... I cannot find a source saying, that it is relevant. Therefore I used "weak keep" and not "keep". The technology is however supported by 2 big vendors (Nero AG and LG) and it seems to me, that it is at the same level, as the protection technologies listed on the CD/DVD copy protection page, which have their own pages. On the other hand, the SecurDisc article needs improvement...147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ferguson[edit]

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

Delete NN, Vanity. Voice actor for some barely notable projects. EndlessDan 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ho hum, nn credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to have a pretty significant role in Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends playing the lead characters best friend. I will do my best to find some references and expand. :) Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need to restore all the Foster's Home info on Wikipedia. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:39 PM US EST Jan 4 2008.
Comment No we don't. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing wrong Mr_KC (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question has anyone other than IMDb ever taken an interest in this person? I mean actual publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd hardly call FHIF a "barely notable project". JuJube (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs more reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently some of you don't have kids. Foster's is NN?! --- tqbf 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- Also, where's the V-word coming from? This article was created by a user who apparently got a barnstar and has diverse contributions, and I don't see evidence (maybe I missed it) that that user is Keith Ferguson. It's bad form to use the V-word at all, but especially when it isn't merited. --- tqbf 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has a significant role in a televison show, playing Bloo in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Bloo has a significant role for being Mac's best friend, and Mac is the main Protagonist on the show. The show has been airing on Cartoon Network since August of 2004. Since he has a significant role in a significant show, he meets WP:BIO. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece2000 --- I understand the "deletes" above, who may simply not have realized who this guy was --- but do you really think an actor on a major television show isn't notable? --- tqbf 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a voice actor for a major cable network show. How can this possibly be construed as vanity? RFerreira (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe add more acting roles he's doneUltimatePyro (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's had several notable roles, and is well-known in the entertainment industry. I'm going to add a few references that I found, but the article needs to be expanded. TGreenburgPR (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was both articles speedily deleted per CSD A7. --Stormie (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mounir Darbaki[edit]

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

This is an article about a 12-year-old soccer player that doesn't meet WP:BIO; I think the presentation has made people overlook the age of this individual. Repeatedly recreated after speedy deletion so I've brought it here to ensure that, if it goes, it stays gone. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating his twin brother for the same reasons as above:

Hafid Darbaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea; "repeatedly" means three, in this case. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both, non-notable soccer players with zero Google hits. Both fail WP:BIO utterly, most likely a hoax. Since it's been repeatedly speedied, salt it too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both and salt per nom and TenPoundHammer. Redfarmer (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7 Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per Ten Pound Hammer. Definite salt on Mounir Darbaki and possibly the other article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt both - no where near notable. D.M.N. (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both per WP:NN. Both articles are the work of Darbaki, who is undoubtedly a very proud family member of these boys, but is jumping the gun just a little in thinking they deserve Wiki articles. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradameus[edit]

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

~~Fails to assert notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - I withdraw my nomination. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several releases on AFM Records establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please find us a citation proving that they have several different releases on that label? Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 5 of WP:MUSIC Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No comment, Mr_KC (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. This is a non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Quest[edit]

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

~~Fails to assert notability. Fails WP:BAND. Possible WP:COPYVIO, in any case, if one takes a peek at their official site. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdraw - I am withdrawing my nomination as I have overlooked critereon 6 of WP:MUSIC. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail WP:MUSIC too:

Wings of Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neverworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magic Never Dies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Master of Illusion (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fails to assert notability per WP:MUSIC. The ttemplate at the bottom of the page has also been listed at WP:TFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:RS and criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC (member of another notable band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gah? The group has Wiki pages in three other languages and releases on important labels. Clearly has enough international recognition to merit inclusion. Kill the copyvio, rewrite and expand. Chubbles (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - important labels? Please state why you think they're important. Do they have a large roster(s) of notable acts? Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Napalm Records does, indeed. They also have a release in Japan on Pony Canyon (listed at Allmusic). Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very convinced that Napalm Records is a notable label; despite a wide roster, most of its acts seem marginally notable if at all. Unless the label can be proven notable, my !vote stays. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] - They haven't released anything on that label though. They've only signed to it. WP:MUSIC states: "Has released two or more albums on a major label..." and "or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." - This band satisfies neither of those yet. And keeping this article until the band does release something on that label would violate WP:CRYSTAL because we'd assume that they would be releasing something. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. However, there is some press about the band: Just two days ago the band was covered by Blabbermouth.net, and they have a profile on the BBC website. Chubbles (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#6, with the ex-member from DragonForce. I bet they've also done national/international tours, given the apparent buzz, though we'd have to find a reliable source to confirm that. Rigadoun (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Meets West (podcast)[edit]

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}}.

East Meets West (podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, failed prod. Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring references since November 2007.
Speedy deletion was declined in October 2006 with reason "podcast is hosted by notable people". However, inclusion requirements are that the web content itself must be notable, not just the producers (alternative would be to merge content into Tom Merritt and Roger Chang articles).
Another reason for contesting prod on talk page was that due to the self-publishing nature of podcasts they have difficulty achieving notability requrements. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and does not cover why this podcast is notable. There are many other shows out there that do meet notability requirements, and keep in mind only one of the three criterion are required for WP:WEB. Thanks. Breno ^talk 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to argue both of the primary hosts and most of the periodic hosts are 'notable' by wikipedia standards. I'd be willing to argue this is notable just for the fact that the hosts work for 2 rival companies (CNet and ZDNet) yet still get together to create a podcast on their own times. Not that I expect this to be a good enough arguement for Wikipedia's deletion patrol. I'm really wondering when te subtitle of wikipedia will change from "the free encyclopedia" to "the "encyclopdia" where we delete everything that's not about pokemon or meta wikipedia cruft" 166.70.27.1 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice I wasn't signed in until too late. Hansonc (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look guys, I'm just here cuz Tom sent me from his Twitter. BUT THAT PROVES THAT THIS ENTRY SHOULDN'T BE DELETED. Tom is so awesome and cool and 'notable' that thousands of folks follow him on Twitter and listen to him spam his podcast. The point is that you're just gonna piss BuzzTown off if you mess with Tom. --Pennyfan87 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Pennyfan87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user has been blocked for meatpuppeting Kww (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should be kept. I have listened to several of the podcasts and the content is varied and notable in and of itself. Its by no means a vanity podcast. Its not only tech but movie reviews, current affairs and best of all an honest and frank exchange of views without a lot of political correctness by an Asian American and an Celtic American. The primary hosts are pros and can make a good cast and say things that they could not say at their day jobs. THey have done 100 casts, so they have stood the test of time in internet years at least. East meets West has been referenced in TWIT, BOL, and MBW, so its not unknown.Rcartwr (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcartwr (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Rcartwr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment by closing admin.. — Rcartwr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --VS ^talk 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TWIT, BOL, and MBW? I know the first one would be this WEEK in TECH. Without specific sources I would hazard a guess that these are more trivial mentions on the show than references. Show us proof though and I'd be more than happy to reconsider. --Breno ^talk 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment out of curiosity let's say someone could say "EMW was discussed on TWiT episode XXX at YY:ZZ" Does that in fact change anything? It's still pretty much un-citeable (as the Mediawiki software stands) in the article unless it's written in a kludgy manner such as "EMW as discussed on TWiT #xxx at yy:zz is a podcast about..." Would anyone find that article more useful than the current version? If a future version of Mediawiki make it possible to cite a specific point in an audio/video file this article should be updated to include this type of citation. Hansonc (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is provision in the {{cite episode}} template to cite a broadcast but it doesn't include a timestamp. But just because there's a mechanism for citation does not get over the notability or verifiability hurdle. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment can you define the difference (in your mind and the hive mind of the "editors" of wikipedia) between a "mention" and a "reference" does Leo Laporte have to use MLA/APA/Chicago format in his verbal comments about EMW to be a "reference"? BTW it's showing your complete lack of knowledge on the subject of podcasts when you don't know the names of 2 of the more popular ones out there BOL & MBW. In my opinion, your entire argument falls apart since your lack of knowledge =/= non notable Hansonc (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I said I was hazarding a guess. Withdrawn my speculation. Feel free to provide WP:RS reliable sources; audio, video, text or otherwise, so that other editors may review. --Breno ^talk 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:To answer the question, the difference between a "mention" and a "reference" is that a reference provides a direct and detailed examination of the topic. As an illustration, a magazine article that contained a sentence like "Scott Bakula, former star of Quantum Leap, is now starring in Star Trek:Enterprise. Star Trek:Enterprise, the fifth series in the Star Trek franchise, ..." is quitely likely to be a good reference for Star Trek:Enterprise, but does not count as a reference for Quantum Leap. For Quantum Leap, it's just a mention.Kww (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two well known and well respected journalists hold a popular podcast. How can this be considered non-trivial? Tom Merritt is broadcast to thousands of people each day via CNET and has been doing so for over three years. Roger Chang, a recent transplant to Revision 3 has worked on some of the most interesting content on the web via Ziff Davis and TechTV. These two guys have more than enough notoriety to deserve a wiki entry about their personal podcast show.Dharrels (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Dharrels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong delete, non-notable podcast. I think I smell socks but that could just be because I haven't changed mine... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While no doubt my initial argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think the existence of verifiably notable personalities on a show provides notability to a work. For instance, if a radio personality like Paul Harvey had a second radio show, doesn't that make the second show notable by the prescence of Harvey alone? That argument may be faulty, but I'm not intimately familiar with all of the precedents of WP. Mhudson3 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sockpuppetry aside, there is no notability for the podcast, and I don't see the limited notability of the creators as elevating this podcast to that status.Kww (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Seriously? Did you really have to call people who don't want to see the standard "delete rather than create" wikipedia mentality win out every time sockpuppets? Let's ASSume good faith here. They could be, you know, actual users of wikipedia knowledge instead of ~~"editors"~~ deleters of wikipedia knowledge. Hansonc (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as yourself Hansonc, please assume good faith of the editors who don't share the same view as you. As the nominator of this article, I put this article into review because I don't think it warrants an article in an encyclopedia. I do not want every article deleted on here. As for supporting create over delete, how about creating content in the article explaining why this particular podcast is notable. Please keep discussion to this particular article and not the entire encyclopedia as there is discussion elsewhere for that. --Breno ^talk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick trawl through a sample from 12,500 Google hits shows no independent evidence of notability, and the onus lies on the defenders of the article to provide it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment You do understand that Google searches don't turn up references in audio and or video right? and that the places that EMW are most likely to be discussed are in audio and video podcasts since those are the mediums in which the hosts work, right? Hansonc (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to find reliable sources, thank you. As a researcher, I've been doing it for over thirty years now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sorry I didn't mean to come off as I appear to have. But I just wanted to point out that a text search for audio means absolutely nothing and should be ignored as useless to the conversation. Hansonc (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Text results have everything to do with determining notability. Just because the podcast produces its content in audio does not mean that the independent, reliable sources need to be in the same format. Podcasts have been featured on tv, in the papers, and magazines. In my comment below are some examples of other podcasts appearing in well-respected publications. --Breno ^talk 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Meaning no disrespect, but I ran "East Meets West podcast" and got several reviews and diggs of various EMW casts.Rcartwr (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reformatted the KEEPs to Keep as there is no need for shouting. I notice now after five Keeps not one has addressed nomination concerns of how this article meets WP:WEB notability requirements. Those who wish to keep, I suggest go back and read this guideline and state how the podcast meets these requirements, or why this guideline should not apply. Also, please be civil in this discussion and WP:NPA no personal attacks. Thankyou. --Breno ^talk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've read WP:WEB. It's broken just like most of the AFD rules and they will remain broken as long as it is easier for a deletion than a keep on every single AFD Hansonc (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors are more than welcome to discuss their reasoning why the WP:WEB guideline is "broken" over on the talk page. WEB explicitly covers podcasting articles in its content. As I said previously, it is still a just guideline and a generally accepted standard amongst editors, and is open to exception. However, there is no evidence given why this article should be exempt of WEB and therefore still applies. Thankyou. --Breno ^talk 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since all sources used are from the podcast itself and a Google search isn't turning up anything that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it fails this essential guideline. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Did you overlook the other shows cited eariler? I would argure that the standards for podcasts need to be revisited. As metioned eariler, Wikipedia is a resource to explore cutting edge ideas and works such as podcasts. I would argue that any podcast that has longevity, consistancy and community support should not be put on the chopping block because someone does not think it has a place. Rcartwr (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources that could pass WP:SOURCES. That, however, exclude podcasts as they are unreliable as sources because they are self-published. Reliable sources are essential for any article to pass any of the notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Farix, thank you for the reply and the cite. I see where you are coming from, however that standard basicly excludes almost all "new media". Ir is ironic that Wikipedia has such an "old media" mindset. I still believe that this standard WP:SOURCES needs to be revised to take the current reality into account. How would that be done?Rcartwr (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason "new media" is excluded is because almost all of it is self-published. And all the warts, unreliability, and bias that goes along with being self-published. --Farix (Talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment you have an obvious bias against anything that smells of "new media". I hate the echo-chamber that is the blag-o-sphere too but 99.99% of podcasts/blogs/whatever the next big thing is are not going to get written up in the New York Times that's just the way it is. Listenership/viewership/mindshare and host/author notability are the only valid ways to judge notability in the case of "new media" . Old media (which you appear to have judged to be the only valid sources for notability) doesn't cover the goings on of "new media" for a number of reasons 1) Podcasts and blogs compete for people's attention with old media companies. 2)"new media" is much more tightly focused than old media and old media isn't going to waste TV time or column inches covering topics with smaller interested audiences. We're stuck with self-published sources to define notability of "new media" because that's the world we live in now. I don't want to sound like all "new media" is equal but in this case EMW has been discussed on This_Week_in_Tech, MacBreak_Weekly, Buzz_Out_Loud and DL.TV all pretty reliable sources in my book. Hansonc (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would Business Week, USA Today, or TIME write articles about podcasters? Because they are notable. --Breno ^talk 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those articles appear to be about podcasting, not specific podcasts. I think we all agree that podcasting is notable. The question is how does one prove that a specific podcast is or is not "notable" 216.250.34.63 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) You'd think I'd pay attention to whether or not I was logged in... Hansonc (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles supplied discuss specific podcasts and mention them by name. I'm not going to list them as I try not to be biased towards particular shows. The point is independent, well-respected media does discuss specific podcast shows in detail. Now before I get too far off topic, I cannot find any independent, well-respected media sources for this podcast. East Meets West. --Breno ^talk 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'And you probably won't for most podcasts listed in Wikipedia now, or in the future, that would be considered notable in the podcasting realm. That doesn't mean they're not notable. Podcasting is not yet to the level of old media, obviously, and only a handful of the most prominent podcasts will likely get attention. Personally I'm of the opinion that the rules should be such that if it has been discussed in some analytic fashion in a notable work (book, old media, article, etc) OR if it is run by a Notable personality (as Roger Chang and Tom Merritt are), then it is, in itself, notable. Proving notability outside that would be difficult. Mhudson3 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing reply indents. --Breno ^talk 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When nominating this article for deletion I had no idea how much fuss this would cause. Doing a quick word count tells me that over six East Meets West articles could have been written with the amount of deletion discussion that has gone on. That aside, this diff shows how little has been changed on the article to address deletion concerns. It all comes down to the fact that this show simply lacks notability and reliable sources to merit an encyclopedia article at this time. Thanks. --Breno ^talk 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under current WP standards, yes. I think what needs to be addressed, however, are those same standards and that's why deletion should be held until they are re-assessed by whatever committee is appropriate. Again, we're talking about a work of notable personalities, which I don't think anyone has addressed. Mhudson3 (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::*Comment The wording for WP:WEB has explicitly listed podcasts within its scope since January 2006. Browsing the talk page October 2007 it was brought up weither iTunes and other "host" websites should be considered respected and/or indepentent of a podcast. The discussion over there has been left open since. Getting back to East Meets West, regardless of WEB this article still completely lacks WP:RS reliable sources. As WP:V policy clearly states; If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I think I now rest my case on this one. Kind regards. --Breno ^talk 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

comment The problem is unless the podcast in question is HUGELY popular enough to attract the attention of old media companies (or is produced by an old media company such as NPR) it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a podcast to meet WP:Web based on the fact that all WP:Web will regard as a "reliable" source is if it's old media.

On a related note according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Podcasting "For a podcast to be notable, it must have at least two of the following requirements:

At least 100 subscribers on Feedburner's count, or 100 Diggs on Digg.com.

Some sort of news coverage from a notable news source.

Sponsored by notable corporation or group.

Hosted by a notable or famous individual or group. "

EMW passes #1 (http://digg.com/search?search=east+meets+west&section=podcasts&process=1) and #4. They don't list feedburner stats on their webpage but I've heard them discuss listener numbers on the podcast and if I recall correctly it was over 100 as well which would mean that #1 is passed twice. As I've argued repeatedly, #2 is almost impossible for the average podcast to meet and not everyone wants to meet #3. -Hansonc (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying my best to assume good faith here Hansonc, but you clearly missed the preceeding line before quoting WP:PODCAST: There is currently a proposal to append/replace WP:WEB requirements, currently being discussed on the talk page of this WikiProject. It is definitely not an agreed guideline on Wikipedia, and the community beyond this WikiProject have not had a chance to discuss or decide. I suggest you read the two talk page archives for the discussion. PODCAST has had that notability proposal up there for a very long time, and there is definitely no concensus at the moment to promote it any further. I'm beginning to think about taking it off the project main page, but I have hopes someday someone will come along and work on the proposal on hiatus and hopefully fix it. Till then WEB still applies, and your point makes no mention of failing WP:RS reliable sources. You're more than welcome to join the wikiproject if you wish. Thankyou. --Breno ^talk 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment actually you're right I did miss that as I skimmed the article. My bad. Since only a very small subset of podcasts can meet the arcane WP:RS (seriously Wikipedia is among the original "web 2.0" sites and it doesn't accept anything that's not dead tree as a reliable source?) standards this needs to be fixed. Hopefully before this and every other podcast article gets pointlessly deleted. -Hansonc (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Podcasting has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --Breno ^talk 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūzō Ishino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unnotable voice actor who only has a few bit roles to his credit (not worthy of the notable label given in the article) and no real information is given about him to establish notability. He is just one of many 81 Produce voice actors. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO at this time. --Breno ^talk 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reliable sources might be hard to come by that are not directory-type entries. Therefore, suggest deletion without prejudice for re-creation if reliable sources are found. The Japanese version of the article appears to be no better off and the Arabic entry is a sub-stub (I am not a speaker/reader of either of those languages). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chieko Atarashi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unnotable voice actress who only has four bit roles to her credit and no other information about her except birth date and company. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO at this time. Procedural nom as WP:CSD#A7 was declined. --Breno ^talk 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Japanese wiki about Chieko Atarashi is more complete. Is not this article a stub? Is not haste delete it? Zerokitsune (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaria (band)[edit]

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

~~Fails to assert notability. Clearly fails WP:BAND. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - I appear to have made an error. My apologies. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that three other Wikis have seen fit to include an article on the band makes me wonder what's wrong with us. Clearly have significant international recognition such as to merit inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Labels: Currently unsigned" - sure sign of lack of notability. They haven't released any notable records independently either. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hardly think currently unsigned is a sure sign of a lack of notability. If there are three international articles, it would meet the standards for requested articles from other languages. The languages are diverse enough I really doubt the same guy with a translator pushed them all through. I think it's gotta be kept. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wiki has different notability standards, I'm afraid. So that's not a hugely satisfying reason for a keep. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it certainly should give one pause, even if circumstantial; if they're really musical nobodies, why are the Japanese and Hungarians paying attention? Also, being unsigned is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability; see, for instance, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Enter Shikari, Death in June... All had significant success without a label.Chubbles (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those bands have achieved commercial success, though. Do you have any sources to suggest this band have? Funeral 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article now has a biography from Rockdetector and a news article from Blabbermouth.net. Chubbles (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also dug up yet another alternate language wiki. Which I know you say doesn't assert notability, but when it is considered fair enough in so many other languages, it definitely warrants some consideration. I'll continue looking for other sources too. I'm definitely of the opinion that if a subject is considered notable in now 4 other languages, it probably can be shown to be notable here. One key will be searching for information under their old name, Uirapuru. There might be some stuff online under that name. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. Other Wikis shouldn't be used as a claim for notability, none of them assert notability or cite any sources. Funeral 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources. I'll leave them to you if you think they meet the requirements, but this is what I've been able to find. This may or may not be considered a substantial enough. What is the position on E-Zines? I've never cited one before, so I'm not sure if they count, I have a suspicion that they are considered to. If they do, there's a mention of them under their old band name here. And another here. matt91486 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last one might be alright, I wouldn't class it as completely reliable though. The other two aren't so hot. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if you only add the one, we've got the two that Chubbles found. That gives three sources, which should be plenty. matt91486 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also important, the previous AfD was not brought to attention. Previous AfD discussion. There was a keep vote then. This should have been brought up with the nomination. matt91486 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sources identified here and at the first AFD identify nontrivial press coverage, so they meet WP:MUSIC#1. It's odd for all the interwikis there isn't one in Portuguese. Appearance of interwikis, btw, is not a claim of notability, but it is an indication that it merits care looking for potential sources. However, I've seen inappropriate articles spammed onto many Wikipedias at once, so it doesn't even mean it meets their requirements, which are generally similar to ours. I don't think we can speedy keep from the withdrawn nom with the stong delete opinion. Rigadoun (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War Weapons List[edit]

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

not of encyclopedic value. Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As listcruft/fancruft of in-universe WP:FICTION items. No references or sources available. --Breno ^talk 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major aspect of a notable game, i.e. weapons are essential to a war game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Game guide details, interesting weapons of the game are already noted in the gameplay section of the main article.. --MASEM 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. A list of what weapons exist might pass as relevant to mention in the main article, but specifics about them, written in an in-game-centric style, most definitely do not. I went ahead and tagged it with {{gameguide}}, but the content doesn't hold its own regardless TheBilly (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game guide, original research, no real-world information is given or likely to surface. Una Laguna^Talk 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material, and Wikipedia is Not a game guide. --Stormie (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:ENC.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a game guide. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this game guide. Axl (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced game guide. Gwernol 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlogiA (band)[edit]

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

~~Fails to assert notability. Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND because their releases are not on any notable/successful independent labels. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdraw - I am withdrawing my nomination as notability has been proven. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fact, they appear to be signed to some rather important Serbian labels, and would indeed pass WP:MUSIC. The dearth of English-language writing on Serbian music should not prevent us from looking at their music as equally legitimate for inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an important label would need to be internationally renowned. If it's an independent label it needs to be well known and have numerous notable acts on it's roster. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the label is important within its own country, that is sufficient; they need not be internationally renowned. Chubbles (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but how would we know that they're important within their own country unless evidence is provided? Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, The Metal Observer seems to think so. Maybe we should ask WikiProject Serbia for help. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the style of writing in that link. That's not a neutral third party source. It's heavily biased. Find something written for a newspaper or something that is from a respected source. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not terribly well written, but The Metal Observer is nonetheless one of the more well-known metal review and news sites. Again, since most of the coverage for the band is in Serbian, it's difficult for me personally (who speaks no Serbian) to find links (or paper sources - often ignored!) I am requesting assistance at WP:SERBIA. Chubbles (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-indent) - Fair enough. I look forward to see what you dig up, friend. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the article their two Serbian-language albums are identified as being released on One Records (Serbia), which according to its article has been around several years and has several blue-linked artists who seem significant in the Serbian music scene. Their English-language release is on Locomotive Music, which also has a roster of apparently significant artists (mostly Spanish). So I'd say they pass criterion #5. Rigadoun (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's been established that they meet WP:MUSIC and also nom withdrew.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Nota bene, I will just place the merge template and leave the rest up to those who are knowledgeable about the subject; it should be redirected when the merge is completed. Keilana^talk 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhasset Lacrosse[edit]

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

This was speedy deleted in May. Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30 was to relist it. Issues to consider include not only notability but verifiability. Though the temptation will no doubt be to merge as at the deletion review, the "traditional dominance" stuff needs to be verified and sourced before it can be included. Chick Bowen 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge works for me. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but only those parts that have been sourced by the end of the AfD. I have moved a couple of the external links up to form references but there is still much that is unsourced. The reference for the 'Fab Five' quote is also inadequate for its retention. BlueValour (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As the author of this article I would have no problem merging it into Manhasset High School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdchamp31 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to be the only option here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Bduke (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Openad[edit]

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

Delete Blatant advertising (already speedied as such as OpenAd) Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unsure why WP:CSD#G11 was declined. Obvious advertising. Similar article OpenAd was speedied yesterday under G11. --Breno ^talk 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides multiple reliable sources to establish notability, but does so in the references section, rather than inline. The article "On Advertising: A Web link between buyers and sellers of ideas" from the International Herald Tribune is a cardinal example of the independent, in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage that OpenAd has received and that has been ignored by our nominator. It's rather clear why WP:CSD#G11 was declined in this light. Any "advertising" issues should be properly addressed via editing, not via AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. Disclosure: It was me who declined the speedy deletion. The amount of work needed to bring the article up to standard was minimal, the facts are represented from a Neutral Point Of View, it is independently referenced from multiple reliable sources, and I believe all standards of notability have been established. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not read as blatant advertising to me, and I have seen plenty of that around here to know what it looks like. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I redirected OpenAd to Openad as the author copypasted it there. --slakr^\ talk / 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With better phrasing, i think it can be substantially improved, yet the article, to my way of thinking , is simply about something that is not quite important, anyway, i think in its current form, it sounds like an ad.

Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References per WP:V are established and that I think it is clear that there is notability, looking at the article. SorryGuy Talk 06:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mango juice^talk 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Shagwell[edit]

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

This article establishes no notability ( WP:FICTION) through reliable sourcing (WP:RS) and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition (WP:WAF) that is also duplicative of the plot section in the second movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. Because the subject of the article in question is a major character in only this film, a redirect seems obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should be redirecting major characters. Minor characters, maybe. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I couldn't have said it better, Coccyx. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep nomination in apparent ignorance or indifference to the actual guidelines. RSs for characters or plots in fiction are the fiction themselves, plot summary means plot summary--characters are separate--and though WP:FICTION is rather sharply disputed, everyone there seems to agree that in breaking out part of a topic, it's the overall notability that matters. DGG (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Disputed does not mean it has gone away, and if anything the policy will be slightly modified. And it makes no sense that would say that, as notability is not inherited, and each article must stand on its own, as this must. If no referencing can be found, this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it has never been necessary for subarticles to stand on their own.DGG (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every article has to be quality, even subarticles, such as Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which is a featured status, so there is no excuse for poorly written, unreferenced, or unnotable subarticles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps as a merge/redirect as suggested above. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klo[edit]

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

This article establishes no notability (WP:FICTION) through reliable sourcing WP:RS and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition (WP:WAF) that is also somewhat duplicative of the comic book articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect into one of the Transformers articles (not sure which one would be most appropriate). I'd say this plot summary is already covered in one of them, so most likely just redirect would suffice. --Breno ^talk 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing to delete as it's getting close to crunch time and no suitable article has been found to merge or redirect to. I agree with nom that it's primarily fiction plot repitition. Ideally, there would be a List of planets (Transformers canon) or similar, but I wouldn't recommend starting a project solely for Klo at this stage. --Breno ^talk 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about Transformers planets. Klo is the scene of the final battle of the Marvel Transformers comic series, which had millions of readers in dozens of countries. The planet clearly has notability on an international scale, but there isn't enough to say about it to remove it from stub status. There's absolutely no reason why the article should simply be deleted, though. Gather up the stubs and merge them into a single article. DOSGuy (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about Transformers planets as above. JIP | Talk 11:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stormie. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as improved.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seldon Plan[edit]

The Seldon Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable band Mhking (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispamcruftisement, and top ghits are all either selling something or blogs. Thin boy 00 @778, i.e. 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, this is a stub. Second, the page was vandalized and I am not sure by who or why, but I am going to revert this to the original page. Third, going by criteria for notability, this band as far as I can tell has been in a couple films, was associated with the notable Lonley girl 15 series, has been in national press (I found a couple articles in The Baltimore Sun), and has been on tours with national acts. They were also featured on National Public Radio and I have found a whole bunch of NPR station interviews with them. I think all of this is pretty good evidence for notability. And again, it is stub. I can find no evidence of this online, but it mentions an appearance on Current TV. I think that this argues for some notability as well. Especially based on the fact that this is a stub, I think it should stay until more info can be fleshed out. AS far as links selling something, every band website (including huge bands) has records for sale...that should not be criteria for deletion. If that were the case all talk radio pages and music websites should be deleted.

--Goferwiki (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good assertion of notability, and it would really help if you could cite those specific Baltimore Sun articles etc. so others can verify that info. I've found a few sources that I'm adding. –Pomte 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC#1; several non-trivial citations have been added, as well as details of the coverage Goferwiki discusses. Rigadoun (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep) based on discussion about notability. If the subject of the article has valid complaints about libel and vandalism, he should go to OTRS or request office action via the WMF email channels. We can't be expected to determine the right course of action, from hearsay without specifics, in this AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Winset[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E One newsworthy incident, and other than tha, no assertion of sufficient notability over and above any college professor, which fails WP:BIO. Avi (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge I agree on the WP:BIO1E, but I wonder a stripped down version of the controversy might have a home in the article for the college. Does seem like a somewhat noteworthy event and there seem to be solid references.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally this was on Emmanuel College's page, but IP addresses from the college kept removing it completely after a series of flames back and forth. Likewise, this article keeps getting vandalized; I've tried cleaning it up repeatedly, but someone seems to have a vendetta against the Professor. Probably best just to delete it, sadly, at least for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.136.137 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a notable controversy. To start deleting articles because people vandalize them is feeding the vandals. DGG (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the substance of DGG's comment. If it's kept or merged is one thing, but once we delete because it's too hard to keep it un-vandalized, then we've lost the war.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Subject has complained about libel and Vandalism to the Wikimedia foundation. -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Palm Tree

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

The result was speedy delete / blatant advertising and no assertion of notability. --slakr^\ talk / 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Palm Tree[edit]

Electric Palm Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hard to discern what this article is about: what is "a circle of critical art practices"? No Google hits for the concept, no references to sources of any sort, no context (eg where in the world is this project happening?) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising, possible nonsense, at the very least it lacks any sort of context. Note: A second nomination was opened about two seconds after this one by User:Mayalld; I speedy closed that since we don't need two discussions open at the same time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete gibberish Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculous gibberish. It's articles like this that keep WR in business. — iridescent 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NONSENSE or WP:BOLLOCKS. Can't decide which. Doc Strange (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, appears to be promoting a non-notable group (or website, hard to tell which) and I've tagged it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China at the Chess Olympiads[edit]

China at the Chess Olympiads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unnecessary fork for one country Mayalld (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see the need for this data to have an article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is more appropriate for an almanac than an encyclopedia. Bubba73 (talk), 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down and comment Please don't bite the newbies!! As far as I understand the two pages China at the Chess Olympiads and China at the 37th Chess Olympiad have been created by User:Gollenaiven and they are its first contribution for Wikipedia. In that perspective his work is really impressive. As he is probably not aware of all our bureaucratic stuff, we should give him extra-opportunities to discuss, explain its case and understand its arguments.

Of course, if I am misguided and this user is not a new editor, everything I say hereover is just plain stupid ;-) SyG (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is relevant to the chess coverage of wikipedia; it brings together the results of China at the Chess Olympics for many years. I can envisage having such an article for every large chess nation. Statistics and records are an essential part of any encyclopaedia. However articles like China at the 37th Chess Olympiad seem unnecessary to me and are better incorporated in the main article. Voorlandt (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be fixed and wikified.It shows potential. --Patar knight (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is highly pertinent in the sport of chess. So far as I can tell this is the only "Country at the Chess Olympiads" article but that is not a criteria/reason for deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress which allows for other country articles to be created -- not necessarily all at the same time. Lop.dong (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable list. How can this article be verified? Should we have one article per one country per one sporting event per one specific tournament? Not to mention of these specific 'listy' sub articles:

China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad

China at the 24th Chess Olympiad

China at the 25th Chess Olympiad

China at the 26th Chess Olympiad

China at the 27th Chess Olympiad

China at the 28th Chess Olympiad

China at the 29th Chess Olympiad

China at the 37th Chess Olympiad (AfD discussion is here)

I think we should limit inclusion of such articles. Dekisugi (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You ask, "How can this article be verified?". How about following the link in the article helpfully placed in the References section? And as regards the other articles, let's discuss them in their own AfD. They have no bearing on whether this article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I can't find there when I clicked the link. It's only a link to a homepage. Dekisugi (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you need to click the mouse a few times to get to the appropriate page, but the article is verifiable at that site. ~~In fact it's so verifiable as to make the article look like a possible copyvio!~~ Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is encyclopedic information which would overwhelm the Chess Olympiad article, so is a valid non-POV fork per WP:summary style. I look forward to seeing similar articles about other nations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~It looks like this might be a copyvio of [14]. I know that that raw facts are not subject to copyright, but in this case the formatting has also been copied, so I'm not sure whether this is allowable.~~ I have listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 January 9/Articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humortueio has determined that this is not a copyvio. The home page of the web site says "© Free to copy". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - This would not be a copyright violation even if it didn't say "free to copy". It is simply a tabulation of data, not some creative work. Bubba73 (talk), 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be kept as it doesn't satisfy any criteria under Reasons for deletion as its copied from another online encyclopedia that's not under copyvio. Humortueio (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like some others, I found this article more borderline than the other China/Olympiad articles, but in the final analysis, just too far 'off-message' to be salvaged. Clearly an editor with great potential though and I'm sure many of the guys at the Chess Wiki-Project will look forward to working with this user on less 'tangential' projects. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is better than the article on China in a particular Olympiad, mostly because it covers a broader topic. China is now one of the top contenders in what is the most prestigious team chess event (2nd place in Turin), and has certainly gained attention in chess publications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the article should be there, but this article needs some kind of annotation or commentary, as it is hard work trying to go through all of those tables that are on the page. Andy4226uk (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, satisfies notability criteria by virtue of a charting single. --Stormie (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawty Lo[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper Mhking (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable. This musician sold a gold album. See Down for Life. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Down for Life article produces nothing about Shawty Lo. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a former member of the band that made Down for Life, so may pass WP:MUSIC#6. But more importantly, has a charting single on his own (criterion #2). Rigadoun (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to satisfy notability criterion #2 under WP:MUSIC - Dumelow (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the closing admin please take into account the comments on the page's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Billboard link indicates a charted single, which meets criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the charting on Billboard makes this person "notable" by the Wikipedia definition. The article otherwise needs work. Lots of work. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He actually has WP:MUSIC covered in numerous ways: he's a member of a notable group (and this variety of notability is inherited), his single charted on a national chart, his record was placed in regular rotation, he (with his band) has a gold record. Easy keep. Xymmax (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirected to the disambiguation page Will ^(talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in crime[edit]

Partners in crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1. Wrong article title. 2. Interferes with links and search term "Partners in Crime", which is a disambiguation page. 3. Article consists of speculation and original research. 4. Duplicate of Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which is currently a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Series 4 (2008) in anticipation of airing. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Rollins[edit]

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

article is COI, being written by the subject, and does not demonstrate actual lasting notability aside from that of any active serviceman with a nice record Chris (クリス) (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It pretty much fails WP:BIO. His mention in the five sources is piecemeal at best. Black-Velvet 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief this article was not written by the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.124.4 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the editor's username is Rjeveret, who has only edited three other articles, you'll understand that we totally ignore your dubious claim. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

// Nice Chris. But as Rjeveret myself, I can personally say that you should not ignore this claim, because it is true. I'm only a fan.Rjeveret (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note This IP address, 214.3.124.4, is registered to DoD Network Information Center. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't say there wasn't a relation...but it is not an autobiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.124.4 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is still a conflict of interest. Sorry, I think this one has to go. Delete. --Bduke (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying that if there is a connection based on acquaintance it is a conflict of interest? I suppose that makes all primary sources suspect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.193.86 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is saying that, as Wikipedia does, Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend. To which I would add that the claims made by two anonymous IPs should never be taken as legitimate primary sources. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

//Ah man Chris, I should have known that you would support the Galactic Empire.Rjeveret (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. But I do notice that most information on organizations and government agencies is submitted by those organizations and government agencies, the same on companies. I could provide thousands of examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffwalk (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which neither adds to this debate nor establishes notability for the subject. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with due consideration of the COI issues, if the tone is neutral and it's well referenced, this can be overcome. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Rjeverett has nothing to do with Capt. Rollins. AND What specifically is wrong with this article?Rjeveret (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"we totally ignore your dubious claim." Why? You sound like the south end of a north bound mule. Rjeveret (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI has not been demonstrated by originator of AfD. Noteability and style have been commented on in reference to Scouting and this article has been rated, as currently written to be of "Mid-importance" on the importance scale as part of the Scouting WikiProject. Perhaps there is someone or perhaps user:rjeveret that can work on this article from that perspective. As far as I can tell this is the only Coast Guard Aviator to have flown in combat and been decorated as such during Desert Storm, that in itself is notable and unique.Cliffwalk (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That demonstrates notability, if true, in which case the article should be rewritten to focus on that. The article is unencyclopedic at present and refers to him as both Captain and Commander. Pick one. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Kis[edit]

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

Non notable person who almost made it into the band that later became the Spice Girls. I took that as too much for a speedy, but my prod was removed by an anonymous editor with the comment "Abigail Kis is notable enough for me to click on her entry. Deletion notice removed." J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and hardly any content at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:BLP1E for a start. Many people audition for pop bands and if they didn't get through that's utterly non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michelle Stephenson entry claims she was briefly a member. If so, correct and keep. (Incidentally some sources claim she didn't last with the band becasue she was awful!) Otherwise Delete and correct the other page. Grusl (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she was a member for a short time, I doubt she is notable. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out the discrepancies. Grusl (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The BBC reference source cited on Michelle Stephenson doesn't even mention this person. She is already mentioned briefly in the Spice Girls article, which is adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc straker (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to pass WP:BIO. TGreenburgPR (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article that would have left through prod. --Stormbay (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the prod was removed by an anon with the comment "Abigail Kis is notable enough for me to click on her entry. Deletion notice removed". J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study Buddies[edit]

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

This is just a television episode plot summary. I doubt that it can satisfy any of the relevant requirements (WP:FICTION, WP:EPISODE). Yng varr 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it doesn't offer any external sources. As WP:N is a criteria for deletion, third party sources must be found to ensure notability of the subject. If consensus is to keep, it should be expanded per episode guidelines. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Doesn't offer any real verification of the plot, there are some sources available on the net 1, but they only seem to determine the existence of the episode with minimal plot summary. So it seems the rest of the content in the article may be orignal research with no reliable sourcing being able to be found. Rt . 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am out of my depth here, but would like to note that 18 out of the first 24 episodes of this series (including this one) have their own pages. Many seem better than this one, but some don't. In any case, most or all of them appear to use the actual episodes themselves as primary source material, a perfectly legitimate practice per episode guidelines. This episode includes "real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element" and "a brief summary of the episode's plot" as suggested by the "how-to-write", but no "Information on production and broadcasting of the episode" or "how the episode was received by critics". Tim Ross·^talk 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim in article of meeting the requirement of WP:EPISODE that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance." --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Griffin[edit]

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

This page came up as a Random article and clearly needed some tidying up, which I did. However, on looking for more information through Google (using an Advanced search specifying 'actor'), only 21 items were returned, many not on the subject, and none of what can be regarded as authoritative independent sources, i.e, mainly Myspace and directory entries. The Wiki-linked films she has been in do not mention her as a cast member in their respective articles which indicates that she had at best a minor role. The film in which she supposedly played a major role is a Wikipedia red link. Therefore, I question her notability. No references are given (and, as I said, I was unable to find any). Further, the article was started and has only been edited by User:Penelope Griffin - blatant COI! Emeraude (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - non-notable autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted per IMDB search for Penelope Griffin the movie "Hot Baby" is noted. Additionally, all of the remainding films can be verified and updated on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope Griffin (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB is not a reliable source. Emeraude (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability; no notable roles or reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are considered a reliable sources for this article to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa V Harris (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The film in which she supposedly played a major role is a Wikipedia red link" Please refer to link for Favor Entertainment. The Phot and performance are there along with contact information. L.Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa V Harris (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user is a new account with contributions to this discussion and the article only. The South Ward is a wikipedia red link. The external link she has posted to a commercial site describes the film as a 'project in development' and a 'concept'. Emeraude (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a bit player with no reliable sources to indicate otherwise. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable actress when the article reads: "has been able to appear in and do extra work for...". Background work doesn't help someone pass WP:BIO by a long shot. TGreenburgPR (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shishukunj[edit]

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

Vague, not notable, and no references Alloranleon (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found (what I think is) their official page, and added a bit of content from that. However, I couldn't find any independent sources on it, so I haven't seen evidence of notability. Rigadoun (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Common Thai Names[edit]

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

Strong Delete Gross violation of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Unreferenced and OR to boot. If there is any referenced information to be found about the most popular Thai names then it should be added to List of most popular given names, and only a few of them in accordance with how it's already written (say, 10 or so names) - TheBilly (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No criteria to explain what constitutes "common", no references, no reason for existing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GaryColemanFan. Most of these individual given names do not have their own articles, so I was going to suggest a Thai given names category, but I don't even think that's warranted right now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect from Auto pact. Duplicate pages should be redirected, and redirection doesn't usually involve AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive Products Trade Agreement[edit]

Automotive Products Trade Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplicate of Auto Pact Kevlar67 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable biography. Subject lacks media/press coverage; a mention in IAFD isn't enough here.PeaceNT (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Hayes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Carmen Hayes

Articles for deletion/Carmen Hayes (2nd nomination)

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

WP:BIO criteria changed. Prolificness not a criteria. Contributions to ebony genre do not seem unique. Ran an AVN Awards nomination check and nothing came up. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed the standards the first time (number of films was 'questionable criteria', later moved to 'invalid criteria' under the old WP:PORNBIO), definitely fails the new stricter standards. No notability established through any of the WP:BIO standards for pornographic actors TheBilly (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of meeting any of the current criteria of WP:PORNBIO. --Stormie (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment above "Prolificness not a criteria" says it all. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone, not notable, no non-trivial coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She didn't even pass the criteria at the time of the first AfD [15]. It's worrying how AfDs are dependant on the type of users who participate. Epbr123 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user is the subject of multiple sources which are correctly cited in the article. Johntex\^talk 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Siva Vaidhyanathan. I will place the merge template and leave it up to the people involved to perform the merge. Keilana^talk 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Information Studies[edit]

Critical_Information_Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

It should be deleted since it isn't notable beyond his writing about it. Are there any third parties who remark as to its notability? None are mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.198.159 (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm curious as to why the entry on Critical Information Studies is being considered for deletion. I began it as an offshoot of Siva Vaidhyanathan's Wikipedia entry. He's a very highly regarded communication scholar and public intellectual, whose work has appeared in academic journals and major national periodicals. He's also appeared on Comedy Central's fake news program, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Critical Information Studies is the term Vaidhyanathan has coined to describe an emerging, interdisciplinary field of study concerned broadly with the politics of information in contemporary societies. Though the term has not yet enjoyed widespread uptake (it was coined only 18 months ago, as of this writing), I don't see any reason why the entry would need to be taken down. It doesn't appear to violate any of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. Among other things, it's clearly not advertising, and the original entry was authored by me--someone who respects and admires Vaidhyanathan's work but who's not, per se, his "friend." Striphas (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Botched nom by an anon IP. Article provides references, which check out, so WP:Notability is not an issue. Dhaluza (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need some cleanup, but - given that no rationale for deletion was provided by the nom, I see no obvious reason to delete this article. I suppose a re-nomination with a proper rationale may be taken on the merits, should an editor wish to provide such a rationale, but I believe this nom should be closed as Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to our article on Siva Vaidhyanathan. Note this is actually a well-formed AfD in spite of its puzzling appearance. The effective nomination date is 4 January 2008. The nominator is 24.167.198.159 who should probably have added the word 'Delete' to his vote above, as well as his signature.
The article has little content beyond a precis of Vaidhyanathan's article. Our articles should digest what the world says about a topic, and not what the original presenter said about it. Looking at WP:BK to get an idea of how notable an entire *book* must be in order to be covered, I see this as falling short. It hasn't won any literary awards, the author is not already so notable that any work of his should be covered even without secondary sources, etc. WP:BK also notes that Some of these [secondary] works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

I realize that this phrase has attained wide currency on blogs, but we don't consider them reliable sources

The Jean Camp paper appeared in 2002 so cannot be a commentary on Vaidhyanathan's 2006 paper.

Eschenfelder's paper is a preprint, and has not yet appeared in a reliable source (scheduled for summer 2008)

The Andrew Ross paper refers to Vaidhyanathan only in two citations, and does not have anything in the text about the paper

Our article (that we are discussing) seems to be promoting 'critical information studies' as though it was a new generally-recognized phrase, which needs to be supported with more evidence per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Our existing article Siva Vaidhyanathan is rather short and there is plenty of room to add this material, if it is significant enough relative to his other work.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Vaidhyanathan. In general an individual academic's theories are not separately notable. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. The suggestion to close this as a botched nom is a bit WP:BITE]y. The anon/IP editor formed a reasonable determination that the article should not exist as a stand-alone article, and the mutiple-step process to correctly list an AFD is tough for most beginners. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as dab-style page with links to separate lists. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms

Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (2)

Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article no longer needed, categories like Category:Hebrew words and phrases can act as a listing for all such terms without need to repeat information from hundreds of main articles into another listing article. Bikinibomb (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Admin Jossi stated in the article talk page that new material may be added to this glossary which doesn't exist in main articles, opposed to my concern that it this would breed more opportunity for OR and POV forking. As a result terms have been added with no main articles and no citations, therefore some of the concerns existing with previous AfDs on versions of this article have not only not been addressed, but intentionally ignored. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on topic -- to nobody in particular: Please use this page to vote, hopefully with reasons, on the AfD. Discussion of the article can be on article Talk. Discussion of how the AfD was submitted, etc., can be placed on this AfD's Talk page. Keep the page as tightly focused as possible for the sake of the closing admin. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and KEEP: these are two different religions. It's a lovely format... very pretty. Would look great as two separate glossaries. And, guys, we can always add a LINK between the two. So, my reasons:

The concepts and words don't match between the two (the same words are used in different ways, and the same concepts link to different words). If a matrix was bad, this is worse.

Well, these are two different religions. People don't SEARCH Wikipedia for "Jewish and Christian terms". They are more likely to search for "Jewish terms" or "Christian terms". Don't you want traffic?Tim (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content seems useful in a list form. It should probably be split into separate articles, though. --Eliyak T·C 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note to closing admin. The two previous "Keep" votes support splitting this article into two separate articles. (Besides those who've commented here, similar views have been expressed by IZAK and LisaLiel in a poll in article's Talk. Drboisclair opposes a split.) Plus, as indicated in the next comment, these split versions have now been created. Thanks HG | Talk 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separated versions. Okay, guys. If you want to keep it together, then delete these (Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms). Do whatever you want. I'm tired of all the arguing. But I'd suggest everyone part company just like the religions chose on their own 1800 years ago.Tim (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the 2 split version and the polling so far, I'd think that it'd be best to delete this article and then judge each of the split versions on their own merits. Any objections? HG | Talk 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a long history and discussion associated with this article that I think should be preserved as a record of how we got here, if nothing else. I'd suggest making Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms a disambig-style page pointing to the two new glossaries.--agr (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, a DAB page is really for common terms that have multiple meanings or alternative names. I would think that the new (split) glossaries would be easy to find via search.~~ There could also be helpful links in WikiProject pages, Judaism/Christianity categories, and the WP category of Glossaries or Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. ~~Meanwhile, discussion histories for a deleted article can be saved by a closing admin.~~ Thanks. HG | Talk 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is keeping the history and discussion available in an archive without requiring some special admin access request. Ideally the two daughter articles' talk pages would each point to that archive. Preserving article history is important if the content persists and I think it's required by the GFDL. Another advantage of a disambig page is that it would preserve the thread from the three AfDs to the talk page and the daughter articles. If there is a way to accomplish these thing without keeping a shell of the original article, that's fine with me. --agr (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on dab. Arnold, you (and Jossi and Kim) are right that, to preserve Talk and edit history, if only for GFDL purposes, as the article gets split in two then it should be turned into a DAB. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the pages have now been split, and if there are any further issues with either of the seperate artciles, raise them away from here. As to the mention of some kind of a link, i only hope Chrismukkah is considered to fill that role! Carlyle 3 Carlyle 3 Contributions/Carlyle 3

Redirect or dab the talk page history is handy to keep around. Possibly also need to keep page history, just in case people have been copying over, and we'd like to maintain GFDL compliance. If people have been copying over, do not delete under any circumstance, as that would constitute a copyvio. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or Keep as disambig page. Do not delete for all good reasons explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is a very controverisal page that has in different forms be nominated for deletion seveal times. IZAK recently set up a poll on the article talk page concerning its future, and there has been some discussion about what to do. I would rather wait to see if good-faith editors on that talk page reach a consensus, before deleting it. My own personal view is this: the page serves right now as a good process for eliciting important terms that need to be discussed. i think once the list is fairly stable, terms relating to Judaism should be incorporated into the Judaism article, and terms related to Christianity should be concorporated into the Christianity article, and we can also use the process to develop stubs for new articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article stays, or the new articles stay, there should be agreement that:
Notable terms would consist of those having their own articles. If you really want a term included like "Normal mysticism" create an article for it first if it doesn't exist, then add it to the glossary.

Entry information should be primary points of a term derived from the introductions to those main articles to avoid POV forking and to maintain consistency if the glossary is also to be used as a point of entry to those articles. If the introductions are too weak or long-winded to use in the glossary, it should be improved on in the main articles, or summarized, then added to the glossary.

If there is debate about any one term or concept, it should be done in main articles, while glossary/list article Talk should be only about how the lists are structured, etc.

If those points were agreed to and posted as editing guidelines for those articles I'd withdraw my support of this AfD and support consensus to keep this article or those other two, either way. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, this would solve a lot of the problems with this article. There would be no debate as to what is notable to include in the list, if it has a main article it is notable. No one would be making up their own definitions from OR that do no exist in main articles, or picking the "juiciest" parts of an article to reflect their own POVs, they would need to use introductions to reflect only main points agreed to by editors in those articles. There would be no more long discussions of figs or shituf or whatever to disrupt list development, those would take place with a consensus of editors regularly working on those main articles in order to coherently incorporate conclusions into those articles. Then if those conclusions end up in the introduction, they can be used in a glossary, if not they will benefit those main articles without involving glossaries. I think these are reasonable guidelines to implement and live by, to help avoid further disputes of the magnitude we've seen here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the following as guidelines to each alphabetical section of terms in all three articles, similar to what is done for List of drummers so they are readily seen when edited: Only add a term if it has its own article. Include brief summary of main article introduction content only for term descriptions. Discuss introduction content in main article Talk, not here. If someone really wants the wording changed I can take care of it, however I won't really agree to not keeping the general ideas of all three guidelines in if these articles are going to proceed without the type of disruption experienced before. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that LisaLiel has rejected guidelines and is replacing intros with her own POV. I will revert to article intros up to 3RR as it takes place. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject Bikinibomb's "guidelines". I've given examples on the talk page of the article as to why this is. Here are a couple of them. Currently, the only article on Chesed is a redirect to Chesed (Kabbalah). But chesed is an extremely common, notable, and important concept to Jews, and has nothing to do (directly) with the Kabbalistic concept. Kabbalah is neither commonly studied by most Jews nor accepted at all by a significant percentage of Jews, while chesed is the general term for the category of actions that include things like visiting the sick, giving to the needy, taking in guests, etc.

Bikinibomb's "guidelines" would require an entire article to be written on the subject before it is mentioned in this glossary. But while it is an important Jewish concept, I'm unsure whether it is needful to have a Wikipedia article on it, and even if it is, I don't have the time, right now, to create one.

Another example is the issue of Christianity as a monotheistic religion. Jewish authorities dispute this characterization. Noting that dispute in a glossary of Jewish and Christian terms is both pertinent and appropriate. But is it appropriate to note that in the article on Christianity? Maybe, but then again, maybe it's gratuitous. The contexts differ, but Bikinibomb would have us dismiss all context and work like robots.

One of the cardinal ideas of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". Rules are descriptive, and not proscriptive. When they get in the way of making a good encyclopedia, we're supposed to ignore them. How much more so a "guideline" proposed by someone who has been putting in bad faith edits, which he's admitted to doing in order to "test" other editors?

Here is his admission of bad faith edits, incidentally: "So as a test I changed 'Christ' to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name." In other words, he deliberatedly put in edits listing "Christ" and "Yeshua" as shared terms, despite knowing that they were not and that I would revert those changes. If that isn't grounds for at least a temporary ban, I don't know what would be. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Christ" to a shared term because you made "Christian" a shared term, one naturally follows the other. That I also wondered what you would do with it was incidental. I made Yeshua a shared term because it is a Hebrew name, nothing to do with the other issue. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is the closest to consensus I've seen on this. The article split seems like a good idea, as do Bikini's restrictions on what is included. Delaying deleting this article as Slrubenstein recommends until the other two are stablized is also a good idea, as is making this a dab page as Kim/jossi suggest. Who would have thought, cats can collaboratively herd themselves : ) --MPerel 19:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Port it to Wiktionary I guess. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Drboisclair (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I think that it serves a good purpose. Perhaps it could be appended to an article that deals with the distinction between Judaism and Chritianity.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A transwiki or copy of some useful version or other to the Religeon wikia at religion.wikia.com might well be appreciated by many! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC) procedural note: if you do so, GFDL compliance requires you copy&paste page history to the talk page at religion wiki, and/or make a subpage with that data.[reply]

(editconflict)Turn into a disambiguation page. Separate glossaries of Christian and Jewish terms would be encyclopaedic (and both, in fact, already exist), but I'm not so sure this is. It could easily be considered a synthesis of published material, thus constituting original research. I think the best option is to simply make it a disambiguation page between Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms. Terraxos (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be consensus on splitting the article and on the need to keep it as a dab to preserve history. Is there any reason not to go ahead an do this and moot this AfD?--agr (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Articles can be changed during AfDs. If somebody objects, they can simply revert. When the AfD is closed, the closing admin can affirm the consensus. Be well, HG | Talk 14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and done this. I would further suggest renaming this article to List of religion glossaries and adding several more that already exist.--agr (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good idea. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that, added several more glossaries and categorized the page.--agr (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because now that distinct "glossaries" have been created, one for Glossary of Christian terms and another for Glossary of Jewish terms there is no need for this "merged glossary" that was in effect nothing but poor WP:NOR trying to weigh opposite and conflicting religions. Now each can belong to its own religion as it rightly should have been done from the start. They can also be easily cross-referenced to each other via "See also" links just like all other articles function on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful information indeed on this shared faith called Judaic-Christian Tradition, tremendous light on the subject comes shining while reading this article, very valuable indeed. Thanks for the authers--יודל (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yiddisheryid: It is not an article, it is a mumbo-jumbo. Yes indeed, there are already very good articles about what Judeo-Christian means and describing and discussing Judaism and Christianity. There are also more than sufficient Category:Judeo-Christian topics and Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics that have worked just fine and cover all the bases, whereas these new efforts at creating long "glossaries" trying to combine opposite and contradictory religions come across as WP:NOR efforts to fit a square peg into a round hole. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite and contradictory religeons? Hmm, that sounds like an extremely POV position to hold. Wow, I can just feel the vehemence. Whence such strong feelings? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- IZAK, although I agree with the termination of this page, the concept of matching concepts to terms and terms to concepts is sound. The fact is, each religion uses the word "Trinity" in different ways. One uses it for Trinitarian ideas (Christians) and one uses it for Arian ideas (Jews). The idea is not to show who is right, but what subject people are on so that they can at least FIND the articles that correspond to each other (Trinity -> Shituf -> Arianism, etc). This article, though, does not accomplish it.Tim (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage everyone to focus on the AfD question and our critiera. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Increasingly a POV pushing tool. Function can be performed by a category. WP:NOT a glossary/dictionary. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be cut down to a list that only inluded common terms. Lobojo (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eventually Assuming that a glossary is appropriate content for WP, there are a variety of definitions that need to be transferred to the Glossary of Christian terms (e.g. the explanation of "paraclete" and I expect there also are for the Jewish equivalent. However some of the entries in the Christian glossary are currently somewhat odd, for example the inclusion of the Hebrew for New Covenant and the definition of New Testament as a synomym for new covenant. In strcit semantics, they may be the same, but to my mind, the New Testament is the book (or rather collection of books) that are the Christian scriptures, while the New Covenant is the new relationship between God and man atthe root of Christian beliefs. Accordingly, deleteion should not take place until these matters have been addressed. However, most of the terms probably have their own articles, so that a list of Christian (or Jewish) terms (which is what the various articles seem to be trying to be) have little value as articles and might be much better as categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pages have been split. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Significant edit history will be lost if this is simply deleted, violating the GFDL. We need to find another way. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the page to List of religion glossaries, which preserves the edit history. I think this new list has merit on its own as it provides navigation to half a dozen separate glossaries. Accordingly, I would support the suggestion Bikinibomb made on the article's talk page that this AfD be closed.--agr (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As discussed above, the edit history can be kept w/article as dab (or redirect). Currently, the article has been revisted into a dab. Alternatively, it could redirect to the existing List of glossaries for religion. Given this existing list, I've reverted Arnold's move (sorry, Arnold). Thanks. HG | Talk 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no List of glossaries for religion and I find it inappropriate to use a pipe to a portal, Portal:Contents/List of glossaries#Religion and belief systems, to suggest this article already exists. It's my understanding that portals are a separate navigation tool and are not intended to replace articles in the primary name space.--agr (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Andrewa below, let's continue on portals etc at the article Talk page. HG | Talk 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll (reluctantly) leave this AfD to another admin to sort out, but my suggestion would be to hold back from any further moves, reverts or whatever, until we can get a consensus somewhere. And I think the article talk page is the place to do it, rather than an AfD. IMO, opening and closing the various AfDs and RMs is not good use of anyone's time. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The previous content of this article, which is currently a dab, has recently been ported over to Glossary of Messianic terms. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard's Luggage[edit]

Leonard's Luggage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability for this defunct luggage company Montchav (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete news.google.com has this, noting their demise, but that seems to be about it in terms of coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sign of a notable company. Dekisugi (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightwave (TV character)[edit]

Lightwave (TV character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(View AfD)

nomination - non-notable, only appeared in a single episode of Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. Never appeared in any other medium afterwards. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Malformed nom moved to proper page by me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass the WP:FICT test. Keeper | 76 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge important information into "Other Media" section of Iceman (comics). Keep edit history intact so that page can be resotred if consensus changes or Marvel decides to bring the character back. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is right and this character really only appears in one episode, then delete (or very weak merge). Whatlinkshere shows she is only mentioned in passing in Iceman (comics), so her notability (which is not established in the article) can't be very big anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Iceman#In other media. Noclevername (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Noclevername, I'd skip the redirect though. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article offers little real-world content, has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. Ridernyc (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in that the appearance was in the finale episode of a cartoon concerning a highly notable comic character. The article even looks good, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: - significance is non-tranferable. Although an episode may be significant, that does not mean that the individual characters featerured in each episode are also significant. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete self-evident per any reading of WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Crockett[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable. Web searches hint that there are a few Mark Crocketts out there. One a politician, another an author, another an executive in a German company. None of them seem to stand out notability-wise Montchav (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I did find one reference in a local paper, but it doesn't establish clear notability. Jfire (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN individual, possible WP:BLP problems as no sources --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 07:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk

Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (3rd Nomination)

Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (4th nomination)

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

Non-notable person. 95% of article's contents is unverifiable. Just check the references. N.B: I am the one who created and contributed the entirety of the Mathew Chuk article. The joke has gone on long enough. Its time to delete this sucker. Walid khalil (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Walid khalil (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be notable student politician, what with the coverage in secondary sources. May be notable just for that horrifying monobrow alone. Get rid of the unverifiable cruft, and this will be a legit, if somewhat short, article. Lankiveil (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The behaviour of the nominator and author may be bizarre, but the fact remains that, stripped of the cruft, this guy is perfectly notable. He remains the only independent in twenty years to be elected General Secretary of the National Union of Students - and the verifiable sources exist to back that up, considering how noteworthy it was seen as when it happened. Rebecca (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs rewrite as indicated by Lankiveil & Rebecca but notability is clear.--VS ^talk 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I would normally outright vote delete for student politicians... the Chuk article certainly has enough references which are clearly about this guy that he meets WP:N. This article has moved well past the point where it should be deleted simply because the creator of the article asked nicely.Ga rr ie 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the nom wrote in the last AfD:
:*Keep I just wanted to address some of the above concerns. Firstly, none of the other gen secs have a wiki, but as I have explained clearly in the article, the current gen sec is unique in that he is an unaligned independent who has defeated a heavily backed party candidate - for the first time in almost two decades. Secondly, regarding janejellyroll's fruitless search, I just wanted to draw attention to the highly unusual spelling of his first name. Most of the references pertaining to him spell it with the conventional double t, hence the apparent lack of references when the correct spelling is searched. Thirdly, with regards to none of the references establishing notability, can I draw attention to the fact that Chuk has been mentioned extensively in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, with the former photographing him for their newspaper and the SMH devoting most of an article to him. ::*Further to this, Chuk's election is described in detail in no less than seven other Wikipedia articles. I have gone to a lot of trouble to reference this article to prove notability. Finally, and most particularly, before you cast your vote, I urge you to first visit the Felix Eldridge and Rose Jackson articles. Eldridge's article remains an unreferenced stub and the two outdated references on Jackson's article certainly don't prove notability yet neither was deleted. Thank you for your consideration.Walid khalil 10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of the noms prior argument. Avruchtalk 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I too share the viewpoints expressed by GarrieIrons, that I would generally vote to delete without losing any sleep. However, notability has been established in line with the accepted standard, it's referenced well, and despite some MOS issues it's reasonably well written. Sounds to me like this article has been moved for deletion on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, which is far from an acceptable justification. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article isn't great (it's style is too casual and it needs better referencing) but the person is just across the borderline of being notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General secretary of a national body is notable, possibly to much detail in some secitons though. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not great but the person seems "notable" by the arbitrary standards. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was obvious keep. DS (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Life (Fidel Castro autobiography)[edit]

Non notable book. No sources. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the autobiography of Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba for over 50 years. How can you say that it is a "non notable book"...? - Keep! Bronks (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs better sourcing, but Fidel is clearly notable.Kww (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or also delete My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography)! Emeraude (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And source now added. Emeraude (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is almost never inherited, but I would think that the biography of Fidel Castro would indeed be notable. Here are two [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52495 sources]. The generic title makes searching hard, but I'm sure that there's more about this book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm unsure of the nominator's valuation here. As already mentioned, Fidel Castro is notable, and the book is written with direct assistance of Fidel, about Fidel. I think that criterion #5 of WP:BK will apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Yngvarr (and others), WP:BK #5 would apply to this case.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel West (British Army officer)[edit]

Nathaniel West (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not the slightest mention of notability in the article, except the title which states he is a British Army officer. I assume that his name appears in the books cited merely because his family is notable Montchav (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest child of a baron does not seem to me to be notable, unless he was the one to inherit. That did not happen in this case. In the absence of further notable detail, delete. Emeraude (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significance appears to be primarily genealogical. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO at present, but insertion of more sources and a better assertion of notability may help change it to a keep. But seen as the creator isn't around anymore, this is unlikely. Rt . 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is not the usual bio-stub for some NN peronsage. Unfortunately the articel is so short that it is impossible to tell whether he is notable or not. However the long list of citations holds promise. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Without Rights[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Parents without rights

Parents Without Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. No third-party sources. It is clear that this group exists, but they haven't done anything news-worthy. Google News hits only bring up comments made by the group, which says very little of use about the group. Montchav (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously AFD'd (or VFD'd, as it is old) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents without rights. --Montchav (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability, no independent sources cited establishing notability, and most of the article is soapboxing regarding Parents Without Rights' political position, rather than actual coverage of the group. --Stormie (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This group may someday be notable but at present it appears to be a soapbox for certain views. Stormbay (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; Google is not the sole arbiter of notability. As discussed, article asserts notability per two points in guideline WP:MUSIC which were not refuted here. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine (band)[edit]

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

A trawl through Google and Google News found noting to back up the importance of this band. As a non-Australian, however, I am mebbe looking in the wrong places. Montchav (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article includes some nontrivial coverage (WP:MUSIC#1) and says a song was placed in rotation on JJJ (national radio network, hence #11). It could use more citations but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Rigadoun (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the article and band page their album has been reviewed in some major Australian papers, though I can't find the articles online. Obviously the article has major POV and sourcing issues, but the band does seem notable. Jfire (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything in google news, or in google that isn't considered a Reliable source fails WP:V Secret ^account 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peril Lies in Wait[edit]

Peril Lies in Wait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:BAND I didn't want to put this up for speedy, as it might be notabele but I don't think so Harland1 (^t/_c) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I was about to speedy it under WP:BAND, and I suggest it doesn't meet that standard. But this will ensure it won't be recreated until the topic is truly notable. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (as SD requester) per WP:CSD#A7. ~ twsX · ^T_C · Typo-Warning! ~ 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nothing indicated that meets WP:MUSIC. Also apparent WP:COI issues, given the primary editor's username. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly non-notable. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Notability is asserted through association with groups who have toured with other groups who may or may not be notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-organized and features multiple sources. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the "references" are 1) a Wikipedia article which mentions another band with whom this band may have played (a completely unsourceable claim), 2) a list of bands which does not even include the subject of this article, and 3) a couple of local gig listings (battle of the bands, etc.). Hardly a properly sourced article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of countless non-notable bands with a Myspace page and a couple of self-produced demos. --Stormie (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC at this point for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2[edit]

Philippines'_Next_Top_Model,_Cycle_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

~~There is no such thing as PNTM Cycle 2 (and I don't think there ever will be). The article is obviously a parody and vandalism.~~ Let me rephrase it. There is no confirmation as of yet about a second cycle of PNTM, and the article stated is overly-vandalized with false information about a HOAX article. Starczamora (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Del...wait a minute, wasn't this nominated for AfD before? At any rate I'd still vote for a delete, I don't think this show's Cycle 2 started showing in November. I don't think it was even listed in any TV guides at all, or even mentioned in any entertainment section in any newspaper (it would have been, if it did air). So I concur with the nominator, this does look like a parody/spoof/hoax page. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no announcement if this one is certain, so therefore, to be safe, this article needs to be removed. It might never come at all, with the case of the "second season" of Philippine Idol, which never came to fruition and instead became Pinoy Idol. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also like to inform you all that the article is being continued to be vandalized by an anon with IP address 124.104.137.217, whom I suspect is Erjentapa (who started the hoax article). The IP address currently has a Level 3 vandal warning. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Scum sucking road whores, just go to hell and mind your own freaking buisiness. faggots! blame your asses! Erjentapa(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are very much interested about creating vandals and hoax articles, go to Uncyclopedia. Thank you and God bless. Starczamora (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like Erjentapa (talk · contribs) is a very disrespectful editor here by the looks of his language used on his comment above. Very inappropriate for a Wikipedian, if you ask me. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the user's contributions, it was all vandalism (including changing names of PNTM 1 finalists, creating a hoax Philippine singles chart called "Quaday", etc). Starczamora (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator.

Soering v. United Kingdom[edit]

Soering v. United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly written, non-notable case. —B o L 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. —B o L 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nom. --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said as nom. You know what, I'm gonna close it. —B o L 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being poorly written is not a reason to delete, but to rewrite. At any rate, the wording about this case in Extradition suggests it set a notable precedent. --W.marsh 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to think that all cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights are necessarily notable (for the same reasons—which, since this case appears to be notable or meritorious of encyclopedic treatment for reasons other than its simple procedural posture, I need not to recite here—that I believe all USSC cases to be notable), but this one, in view of its broader precedential effect, surely is. Joe 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a landmark decision from a major Human Rights tribunal. If nothing else, it is notable for the views expressed on the US legal system ("expose him to a real risk of torture"). I have a copy of the full judgement (you can see it here [[16]]. I have linked this in the article and will use it to improve the article when I get time. Emeraude (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is indeed a landmark decision in the world of international law, and has been called such here (where it's called "the leading case on extradition and human rights"), and here (warning, big pdf that calls it "one of the most celebrated cases in the death penalty arena"). Imagine - the tribunal basically said that simply being on death row in the U.S. (not capital punishment itself) may be enough to violate human rights. If you're at all familiar with the area, notability is a no brainer. To get an idea, look at the hits from Google Scholar here These are scholarly articles and books, many of them appearing in publications with editoralial or peer review boards, that are either about the case or cite it. This article certainly can be given serious encyclopedic treatment. Xymmax (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the equivalent of a Supreme Court case in the U.S., no? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it's even more important than that. The US Supreme Court only has national jurisdiction. The ECHR is an international tribunal that has juridisction over and above the supreme courts of its member statess. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it resulted in a major legislation change then it's a notable case presumably.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is all over Google News and Scholar. What is the criteria for legal notability if this is considered a non-notable case? --Amaltheus (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is one of the key Strasbourg rulings over the past 40 years, and interesting from a European perspective as a damning indictment of the US use of the death penalty practices. Yes, the article may not be fantastically written, but it is a start. Ravenseft (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no credible reason for deletion has even been suggested. The nom's statement "non-notable" is patently erroneous, given the sources cited in the article itself; and "badly written," even if true (which isn't obvious to me), isn't a suitable reason for deletion. --Russ (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Astonishing nominiation - the article may be poorly written, but that has never been a reason for deletion. Case is still an extremely important judicial precedent in European human rights law. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case has been cited in 347 law review articles on westlaw.com. It has also been cited in the 8th and 9th Circuits as a basis for an 8th amendment challenge to lengthy confinement awaiting execution. Supreme Court justice Breyer has cited this case in support of his position that he would grant certiorari in these circumstances. There are numerous independent articles that describe this case on the internet, which would satisfy the criteria for notable articles under wikipedia guidelines. Better care in the nomination process would be appreciated. The recent expansion of the article makes this nomination moot. Comment was left on the nominator's talk page. Legis Nuntius (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable in law. Once again, if people are not familiar with the field, why do they submit articles for deletion? Why not try to get familiar with the field, or humbly stay out of the issue? or tag the article "notability not asserted" or whatever? --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sonia red[edit]

Sonia_red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Sonia who? Just being a porn-actress does not make a person notable. She is a nobody. Article for deletion! --Yernass99 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn Mayalld (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability standards of WP:PORNBIO (no evidence that "Viv Thomas Award - Babe of the Month" is "a well-known award", it's not even mentioned in the Viv Thomas article). --Stormie (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award appears not to be significant, and there's no evidence of any substantial reliable coverage here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete efforts to establish notability by one editor are appreciated, but notability is not communicable. No valid arguments for this band's direct notability were made. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable (WP:MUSIC) or verifiable (WP:V/WP:RS). See discussion on article's talk page. kingboyk (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I randomly came across the page after it had been tagged as a hoax. I'm not really big on the synthpop scene, but I've determined that since Hugo Bugg is certainly a prime example of the genre in Toronto, and Title is his "official" band, it counts as notable. Indeed, their last full album, Moonfly, was produced by John Punter. If they're notable enough to be able to acquire talent like that, they ought to be notable enough for Wikipedia. (Moonfly is on page 6 of that list of albums produced by John Punter, if you are having a hard time finding it.) It was claimed that he has been nominated for a Juno award. A cursory search did not find the nomination, but I do not know Hugo Bugg's given name, so I did not search that. I also have not checked to see if any of the songs charted anywhere. I have included a pair of "maybe" reliable sources on the page, which mention the band. Between these, it appears that the chances are high that the band meets at least one of WP:MUSIC's criteria. As I mentioned on the talk page, what the article really needs at this point is for someone familiar with the genre (or is at least familiar with Toronto's local artists...) to edit it and link to appropriate sources. I've found many, many, many less-than-reliable sources in at least 5 languages. So, at this stage, deletion is highly premature. Especially since the reliable sources needed for this article are likely to be print. And there's evidence that he toured Canada on a "semi-official" tour of some sort in the 1997 timeframe. That's about all I have to say about this at the moment, I suppose. I guess my New Year's Eve is going to be spent researching an artist who I liked enough to purchase his CD, but not enough to remember even when I bought it... Maybe it's time to find my hard disk from that time frame and see if I retained any relevant data which could point me in the right direction... -- Lewellyn ^talk 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to note that I've linked the band to having to do somehow with Men Without Hats... Still looking for WP:V on that. Considering that I'm not from/in the Toronto area, and that most smaller reputable sources weren't "online" a decade ago, this may prove to be a challenge. -- Lewellyn ^talk 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've found quite a few sources which would fail WP:RS, but they all tend to agree with one another and indicate that there's coverage (in print) in at least one local paper. So, at the moment, I'm trying to track down a friend in Toronto who would be able to look ths stuff up locally. But, it looks like there was a "tour" of some sort (scope of tour still needs to be determined) and (Hugo Bugg, half of the duo, at the least) appears to be considered as the "example" of Toronto synthpop. Besides the fact that John Punter was involved as the producer (and if HE's not notable, I can't imagine who is!) indicates that with enough digging of "off-line" resources, there's bound to be a large cache of "source gold" to be discovered. (BTW, my reading of WP:MUSIC indicates that just his notability can make the band notable... Please correct me, with evidence, if I am mistaken..) Of course, anyone monitoring this AfD who is in/near Toronto and/or a Synthpop fan would be welcome to help on this article. Otherwise, any changes I make will have to be researched and integrated in my free time... And, honestly, as much as I want to see this become at least a respectable article, I tend to have "bursts" of Wiki activity... So, a loving editor would be welcome! -- Lewellyn ^talk 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how they meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, not even criterion #1 ("subject of multiple non-trivial published works..."). Precious Roy (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Gillies[edit]

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

A local reporter who's worked for several local stations. I can't find much to class him with notability. I've searched both his given name, and his on-air pseudonym, and the best I could find is an award at [17]. Yng varr 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No particular claims in article of meeting WP:BIO; 26 non-wiki ghits, most of which aren't about this person, and none of which show any notability for any of the matches; 0 google news hits.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meg and Seron[edit]

Meg and Seron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a future light novel adventure series. It seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It's a future book by a notable author, and it's set to be published in March 2008 by a notable publishing house. I say keep (assuming that it's true, of course). DS (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is the author notable enough to meet WP:BK#Criteria #5? Can't say I think he does. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put things in perspective, this is actually the third part of the same series as Allison (light novel) and Lillia and Treize, which are being made into an anime in the spring, Allison and Lillia. (All these articles need to be expanded, obviously.) Like I said, should have been created when the book was actually out, but it seems like a waste of energy to delete it now and recreate it in two months. Doceirias (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, THERE'S the key information -- it's being adapted. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would have waited till it was actually out to make the page myself, but no reason to delete it only to make it again in March. Dengeki Bunko releases for Jan-Mar 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doceirias (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. (not by me, though —Quasirandom (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:BK criterion #3, in that (per above and Allison and Lillia) it's being adapted as a dramatic work on a nationally televised network. This assertion of notability needs to be added to this and the other articles for the works of this series. As Doceirias notes, it's not hard to find reasonably secure evidence that it is a scheduled book, so WP:CRYSTAL is not a problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Canley (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumalip[edit]

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

This is a Baranggay that doesn't pass notability. Baranggays are parts of a town not a town itself so WP:LOCAL is not applicable Lenticel ^(talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. As per nom. Starczamora (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- doesn't even pass WP:N. 212 people? --Howard the Duck 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial sources that refer to this barangay. --seav (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know about barangays, but it's been established that all stand-alone places are notable. But if barangays are just small sub-communities within settlements, then I'd agree that they're probably not notable as stand-alone entries, and they all have to pass WP:V as well.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Or, since a barangay is too small a sub-unit of a town to have its own article, it might be better to have it merged with the main Licuan-Baay article (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cabaroan, Bacnotan, La_Union. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was. Delete and Redirect to Mark Speight. She was not notable, her death was a notable fact in the life of already notable Mark Speight though. This close is obviously not a votecount... Fram (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Collins[edit]

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

A short biographical article about a recently deceased person, which was originally nominated for speedy deletion. I really have no opinion on this, but feel that the wider view of the community should be gauged before a decision on whether or not to delete is made Egdirf (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep undeniably notable for her life if not her death. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability is easily deniable. See WP:BIO1E - people known only for one event. The only references here relate to her death; there's no evidence presented of notability outside of it. TheBilly (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for renaming the article and refocusing the topic to "Death of Natasha Collins", not deleting it outright. Much of the content of this article would be usable for either topic. John254 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Speight, I don't see much notability asserted here by herself, IMDb only lists 2 shows. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability is as a BBC TV presenter, which isn't really IMDB's area. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ow ok, every time I check a TV Host on imdb, I get plenty of hits for each show they presented. Mmm, "Natasha Collins" bbc -death -police in google shows no significant English results. I don't see significant coverage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as Dweller. --Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Being the girlfriend of someone notable does not transfer notability. However, it would be very useful to have a redirect pointing to the section about her in Mark Speight's article TheBilly (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel she was an independent person and her death may have nothing to do with her boyfriend, she was a presenter of note and people will look her up, admittedly largely because of her untimely demise. Kateab (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But her notability isn't established. I don't thik it's unlikely she's notable if she was an "actor and BBC presenter", but if nobody is going to prove it then the article deserves deletion. This shouldn't be a straw poll about whether we feel sorry for dead people; AfD debates are about the merits of articles based on the Wikipedia guidelines, and currently the article fails them TheBilly (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She had her own individual career separate to that of Mark Speight. This entitles her to the right to her own article. It's like saying if the Queen Elizabeth died, we'd put her onto the Duke of Edinburgh's page. CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She had a career so that entitles her to her own article? That covers every worker in the world ... WWGB (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She had her own individual career - which wasn't notable enough to get her a page before she passed on. --EndlessDan 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speight's article. She's only really notable for being some guy's dead girlfriend. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Endlessdan --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't a BBC presenter (the closest she got was being an actress on a children's puzzle programme nine years ago) and the fact that people are discussing her as if she was, and this not even being questioned until now, suggests rather strongly to me that nobody knows who she was, she isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense and the article should therefore be deleted. But hey, it's your own stupid fault for having such restrictive rules on notability in the first place. - Q4

Keep: I believe this entry meets notability requirements. Agree with Dweller on this one. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speight's article. Chris (クリス) (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - on the basis that she just about reaches notability (you could easily argue it the other way), but more importantly that we don't know yet about the circumstances or causes of her death, and hence redirecting to Speight sets a legally conclusive precedent which is highly liebelous for the Wiki foundation. If we delete now, it will only get recreated by a Anon. I'd like to see this one re-debated in at least two weeks if not four, when further details will be confirmed by reliable Media and Police sources. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dweller - Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the story only broke this morning, it is unlikely that a Google search would throw up much just now. Surely the test of her notability will be if there is an obituary in tomorrow's Times. Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this is the contrary, 100% of the google hits are related to her death. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they are. My apologies for that. I actually considered creating this article myself when the story first broke, but couldn't find much about her at that stage, so decided I wouldn't. My comments really relate to that. I think it should be kept though - for the time being at least and until further details become available. Brochco (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an obituary, although her death is reported on page 5. I'd still like to see this article kept though, for the reasons I stated above. Brochco (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had not been notable before her death, only reason of notability is because her death involves a children's TV presenter and his subsequent arrest, which will explain why this is seen to be as scandalous. The bottom line to this is I want to point out that this site is not IMDB (she has her own profile, so why not contribute there instead). Willirennen (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per most of the above. Tilefish (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Anon IP) But hold off on the adding of pointless speculation until the facts are known, rather than copy & paste from BBC news just for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.84.157 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Anon IP) Who is she? A minor actress, that's it. Just because she's dead, it doesn't make her famous. Just as it's inappropriate to list dead animals, no matter how 'famous' they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.50.159 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, as per Lucasbfr. Only became notable after death, hence the creation of the page today. Most sources that relate to her previous history are from the current news stories, therefore only notable for this event. Rt . 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTABILITY, consistent with the conclusions reached here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. That's the Wikipedia line, but as I've said before - "I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it.". Topically there's another similar debate going on here, it would be interesting to see how consistent the WP procedures are over all the similar instances. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, I don't regard myself as a sensation hunter. I just look for subjects to create articles about is all. Although I didn't create this one, I thought about it - as I would have done had it been a middle aged man. Brochco (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about her, I recognise her face very well, though that is perhaps because I'm too often awake at 5am watching see it saw it reruns (and that program apparently doesnt have a page either, so clearly thats not a notability provider). The people who are voting delete do have policy on side. However, if it is deleted, it will definitely, as someone said, be recreated within hours. Which would mean that if it were to be deleted it would need to be salted, which I disagree with as an option at this juncture because more developments might change the situation or blah blah and we shouldnt have to, in that case, rely on busy admins to care, because they don't always. Plus, there's nothing wrong with giving it a couple of days til the attention dies down and the deletion can be cleaner. So weak keep. Jdcooper (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People might want to keep an eye on the article as the afd notice had been removed. Hiding T 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "WP:NOTABILITY" how was this ever considered for a speedy deletion is beyond me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if we can show that her life was more notable than her death (no disrespect to her but people are murdered all the time, doesn't in itself make her notable). • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. It looks like a reasonable case can be made to say she should have had a page anyhow, so let's make the page she should have had while alive.--Nickpheas (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Done quite enough in her career to be listed, untimely death is beside the point. Paste (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete (Anon IP) the page was only created after [and because of] her death. if she were notable for her life it would have been created earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.14.123 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Anon IP) Other articles have been created following a person's death, and I don't seem to recall all this fuss over those. I want to draw people's attention to Trish Williamson as an example. She only really rose to prominance because she was a weathergirl on TV-AM, and somebody's daughter. The article concerning her was created following her death in a motoring accident late last year. Where do we draw the line folks? Should Natasha Collins be deleted simply because her life was cut short, and she didn't get to achieve as much as she might? I think not. 86.147.219.233 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Needs expansion, though. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whoever proposed this for deletion needs their head testing. There are some exceptional circumstances regarding her death and her breath career is worth mentioning alone. The article simply needs improvement. Tom Green (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate section of Mark Speight. Her career lasted less than two years -- a handful of television acting roles have surfaced, that's all. She appears to have done nothing of note since her accident in 2000. Had it not been for the unfortunate circumstances of her death, no one would be requesting an article for her. WP:BIO1E applies. --Popplewick (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Objection to keeping the article seems to be that Ms Collins was only a minor celebrity in life and that she is only notable as a consequence of her unusual death. I think (plainly speaking without meaning to sound callous) that the combination of "minor celebrity" + "unusual death" = notable. The news story is not finished. We don't know the cause of death and whether there will be any criminal charges resulting from it (to anyone). It would be churlish and disrespectful to try and second guess these outcomes and on this premise we should not make a rash decision to delete the article IMHO. Rrsmac (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as tv presenter. Her career, while short, existed. Had she lived longer, she may have been even more notable than she is now. Editorofthewiki (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was a notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Anon IP) Remember, James Dean starred in only three films before his untimely death in 1955. 81.152.144.31 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Natasha Collins. Actually, I'd be quite happy to see Wikipedia cover less notable people (I thought of requesting an article on Emma Fitch, for example - Fitch was the woman who did the Kelly Homes tattoo hoax, and from the publicity for that alone, is probably more notable than Natasha Collins ever was), but I don't think it's going to happen. My vote would be keep, provided that this set a precedent for the lowering of notability requirements. -88.109.27.53 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean was already famous before his death, plus he is still notable after his death, and what about Ms Collins, she wasn't notable before her death and I am very doubtful that she will be when Easter comes considering there is nothing memorable about her career. Also this article had been created following her death, so in this case I don't this article will ever survive and I don't think the notability requirements should be lowered as we got too many junk articles. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, what is wrong with creating articles following one's death? People then start noticing that person. Evebn if she wasn't famous during her life, she was notable (there's a differences). Editorofthewiki (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, her death has made the national headlines in the UK, so she has some notoriety.(A. Carty (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep (Anon IP) she is obviously notable as she is in the papers and on the news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.160.2 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008

Comment on above lot, I do question on those with a keep nomination, are you nominating keep because of the recent drugs death prompted you to google her name and you found this and because it is in a AfD nomination, you decided to vote keep for the sake of it. Ask yourself this, have you heard of her before her death, if no, then ask yourself why are you voting keep, is it because it is another "celebrity". Other than that, a drugs death involving a children's TV presenter is going to create more media attention that a porn actor's death would, why, if you are a parent, would you feel scandalised that a drugs death involves a children's TV presenter. Not to mention that all publicity only concerns her death and nothing before it. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". As a result of her death, she has, therefore she is. Confirmed by previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS - "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." Despite coverage of her death, she has not become a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article. --Popplewick (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I hadn't remembered that. That brings into question the consistency of previous Afds. I'm going to raise the whole issue on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Willirennen's comments directly above. Very well put. _TheIslander 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Anon IP) Perhaps those saying that her career was notable could explain what she actually did.78.148.55.81 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She worked as a TV presenter, which I see as notable. Beside that, there's her death, which is covered by many sources. But she did do other work. Editorofthewiki (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has she presented (other than corporate videos, I mean)? --Popplewick (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, nothing; but she worked as a model and an actrees in several children's tv shows. The fact that an actress in a children's tv show took drugs, to me, guarantees one inherant notability. Unusual circumstances of death is just an add-on. Editorofthewiki (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know that she has taken drugs. That's purely speculative until the toxicologist report comes through. Still notable? --Popplewick (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Anon IP) How notable is she? So enormously notable that when she had the accident that effectively ended her career seven years ago, it didn't even make the news. So notable that when she died, the story wasn't "FAMOUS PERSON DIES", it was "KIDS' TV PRESENTER ARRESTED OVER DEATH OF GIRLFRIEND WHO WE THINK WAS A PRESENTER OR AN ACTRESS OR SOMETHING, WE'VE NEVER ACTUALLY HEARD OF HER BUT WE GOOGLED HER AND FOUND A SMALL CV THAT LISTS NON-STARRING CREDITS IN THREE TV SHOWS NOBODY REMEMBERS". Wow, really notable then. - 88.109.27.53 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, would you mind not shouting please? See WP:CIVIL. _TheIslander 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't shouting, I was imitating a newspaper headline. Strewth. Why do I even bother? -88.109.27.53 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(answer to Popplewick) OK, fine have it your way. I still think she took drugs, but please see the rest of my arguement. Still notable? Yes. Editorofthewiki (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Anon IP) Unless someone's going to go through deleting all the articles about all the so-called non notable actors/actresses/television presenters, etc - living or deceased. And there are quite a few of these. One I found this afternoon is a biography of Nathalie Lunghi. Who's she? I hear you ask. Well, she's Cherie Lunghi's daughter (Cherie being a wee bit more famous than Nathalie). But she still has an article, despite having only appeared in a handful of productions. Admittedly, she's alive and well and in her early 20s, so perhaps this is a different case, and she will hopefully have a long and prosperous career ahead of her. It's still a short article though, so if we're going to apply strict rules to these things, shouldn't we be deleting her until she's more notable? And Nathalie's brother, Rowan Joffe also has an article, incidentally, and that's even shorter. But these guys have notable parents, and careers worthy of a mention on the IMDB, and Natasha Collins had a (sadly for the wrong reasons right now) notable boyfriend/fiance, and also merited an IMDB entry.

Something that concerns me more, however, are the countless articles about porn stars who nobody's heard of (unless they happen to have an unhealthy appetite for those kinds of films). A few examples for you to consider here include Elen Cole, Josephine James, Stephanie Bews, Samantha Sterlyng, and a whole lot more besides. Now tell me how they're famous (other than for starring in blue movies), and whether we should be keeping them. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We keep them because they pass the notability guidelines for adult movie stars. Decisions like that are the exact reason we make specific notability guidelines. If they fail such tests then the articles will be deleted as and when. Thus, because Natasha Collins was not a porn star (as far as we know), that is off topic. Jdcooper (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that guideline is extremely low. Since there are no guidelines for supercentenarians almost every one gets deleted. Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Anon IP) I never said she was. You're completely missing the point I was making. There are plenty of articles about non-notable people on Wikipedia, many of whom are less notable than Natasha Collins is or was (depending on how you look at it). My reference to the above mentioned porn stars (and to the other actors for that matter) was to make my point. These were just articles I happened to land on in the course of my Wikitravels this (or rther yesterday now) afternoon, and on a different day I may have generated a completely different list of people. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone's supposed to point you towards this essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other than that, the porn stuff is off topic for this discussion, which is only intended to deal with the one article. --Popplewick (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Anon IP) Sure, but I'm probably not the only one who should be directed there. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's a great policy, but I believe that that anon was making a point about the fact that notability standards are being lowered to the point that this article should be kept. A point that I agree with. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Anon IP) Thank you. That's exactly the point I was making, though I could have been a little more concise in the way I made it, I guess. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other undeserving articles have not yet been deleted, doesnt mean we have to keep this one until they are; we dont have to delete articles in order of triviality. In all cases such as this, the question is not "is the subject notable?" but "does the subject pass notability guidelines?". For us to decide whether a subject is notable is original research. We let the agreed policies make the decision. In this case I feel that the policies are being too loosely interpreted. Ask yourself, if Collins had not died this week, and she had an article, and it was nominated for deletion, would you all be so vociferously defending it? Would you even care? Probably not, and since everyone dies, just dying does not mean you pass any notability guidelines, because then everyone would be eligible for an article, provided they had died. Footnote in Mark Speight, who is not even particularly significant himself. Jdcooper (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She wasn't really that notable, so why have an article about her? A redirect to Mark Speight might be useful, but as she will probably have been forgotten in a few weeks, I guess even that's pointless. Brett Leaford (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, but not famous. Until her death. Had she not died perhaps she would have been famous. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She may be dead but the story has not yet ended. Possible public interest. Triwbe (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story of her death has certainly received a lot of media coverage - it was one of the main stories on Sky yesterday. I'd say therefore that she was noteworthy, so the article should be kept. Paul20070 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd describe that story as being the story of Speight's arrest, not the story of her death. If she had been ~~murdered by~~ found dead in the apartment of Joe Average, it wouldnt have made sky news... Jdcooper (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presenter on a national BBC channel with a lot of reliable sources. Many bio articles are only created when someone dies; I guess that's when the RSs pop up. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She never worked as a presenter on any national channel. I mean, good grief, if people are determined to keep the article, then so be it, but between poorly sourced allegations of drug abuse and blatantly untrue assertions of her working as a BBC presenter, I do have to wonder at how well informed many of these comments are. --Popplewick (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She co-presented "See It, Saw It", which was broadcast on BBC One for two years. BBC One is a national channel that is run by the BBC, hence the repeated use of the phrase "BBC presenter". Brad (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she did not present that programme, she was an actress hired to play a supporting role in that programme. There is no evidence she ever presented a show on national television – mainly because she has never presented a show on national television. --Popplewick (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right to say that she didn't "present" it when reliable sources say she did? Brad (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is when they're wrong. --Popplewick (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, care to share these sources with the rest of us? We seem to be having trouble finding any reliable sources that state she was a national television presenter. _TheIslander 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one news source, Sky News, has described her role on See It Saw It as co-presenter. However, this was an early story, part of the rush to get a headline out. Calmer heads have since adopted phrases such as "appeared alongside him". --Popplewick (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheIslander, I would but they're much the same as the one Popplewick has posted above; articles written only a few hours after her death. BBC News Online referred to her as a "presenter" a couple of days ago, however they often change articles without noting the amendments. In the absence of permanent sources saying she was a presenter, I'll go with a weak delete -- she was the "See" of See It, Saw It but currently the only notability she seems to have is dying. I also suggest not redirecting to the Speight article. Brad (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The irony is that including articles (or to put it another way, preserving information) on people like Natasha Collins, who aren't actually all that famous, or are famous for a week, would actually add real value to the Wikipedia project. If only Wikipedia collectively was serious about being a repository of human knowledge, rather than its actual attitude of WE decide what's notable and sucks boo to you if you want to know anything WE don't deem important enough. It's so tied to the "old media" idea of what an encyclopedia is, that it systematically rejects the very advantages that that an online encyclopedia project ought to embrace. It could, and should include articles like Natasha Collins, and Emma Fitch, and David Martin (murder suspect), and Steven and Paul Cheatle and... well, you get the picture. All of these people got massive publicity for a short time but try looking for info on them now and it's a pain in the neck, even with the benefit of the web. Wikipedia should be trying to fill that knowledge gap, not widening it. - Q4 (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though you actually make some quite interesting points, they're not particularly relevant here. All we're discussing here is the article on Natasha Collins, and whether it should be deleted or not, not the basic policies of Wikipedia. In this discussion, whether you agree with the policies or not is more or less irrelevant; this is a forum to state whether you thik the article in question abides by those policies or not. _TheIslander 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back to the subject in hand, just to make it crystal clear for the closing sysop, people keep stating that she was a national TV presenter on the BBC. She was not. They also state that she took drugs, which apparently makes her notable. This has yet to be proved one way or the other. _TheIslander 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She appeared in three TV shows, and presented corporate videos to the BBC. That makes your point irrelevant, unless you want to contradict The Times. Please see this ref, closing admin, before you delete this article:^[1] Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read a copy of yesterday's Daily Express last night. The story is on page five, and is largely about Speight, and the details of the death and police investigation. Of Collins, it says she was a "promising actress". Hmmm. Promising actress. That says to me that she may have been more notable had she lived and had more roles, but at the time of her death, she was not. Brett Leaford (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She may have been a promising actress way back when, before the car accident she was in in 2000/2001. That promise was not fulfilled in the years after that. --Popplewick (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She appeared in three TV shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2008

Keep (Anon IP) I think she is important enough84.134.93.225 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - at least five of the anon IPs I've highlighted in the conversation above have no edits save those to this page. Just something to bear in mind... _TheIslander 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see somebody has seen fit to create a See It, Saw It article today. Just thought it was worth mentioning this. Brett Leaford (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems non-controversial - a popular show in its day. However, a page for Kate Crossley is probably going too far. Especially as it seems to have been created by someone who doesn't realise that See was a jester rather than the jester in See it Saw it. (Guess what the other one was called?) - PinkEllie (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a page on Philip Fox. He's probably a bit more notable than Natasha Collins and Kate Crossley, but even so. Where does this end? Brett Leaford (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable both for her life and death. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her death has received much attention in the British media. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Natasha Collins in multiple reliable sources cited in Natasha_Collins#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an anon IP I am of course worthless scum (at least, that's the impression I get from this discussion) but I would nevertheless suggest that the news coverage (re-)establishes notability for Speight, not Collins. The interest in Collins is entirely because she died in Speight's appartment and (I regret to say) nothing to do with Collins' own notability. If you want an indication of how notable Collins was, look at how much coverage her road accident got at the time: none. - 88.109.118.83 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not worthless scum, and we are sorry you feel you've been treated that way. Anyway, she did present corporate videos and act as See in See It, Saw It. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And really did little else apart from that. Oh, I mustn't forget, she was in 10th Kingdom and Real Women II, or someone will remind me of the fact. I once appeared in an Open University documentary for about five seconds. Perhaps I should have an article. Brett Leaford (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been in it for 10 seconds, but this women was co-star for a year. Plus she had a few other roles that you demonstrated. I don't see any question for deletion of Kate Crossley, who functioned as See following Collins' departure and little else. But something. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five seconds actually. And my point is that I am just a Joe Average who happened to appear on television. So was Collins really, and so was Kate Crossley. Brett Leaford (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; she appaeraed in three notable tv shows, the co-star of one. That, besides her death, seems notable to me. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
U wil call eNythin "noptaBLE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Been coming back here for days reading all the comments and pondering the concept of notability. I just don't think this is quite enough, I think someone needs to be notable beyond the resume of this woman and I have issues with one's greatest notablity being a rather unnotable death.OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's welcome to their opinion, but you don't make policy. Her resume seems to meet WP:BIO as per above John254's comment and mine further up. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ownlee famoos 4 been ded, of cours theres the paper dead secrtion of those who wan 2 b famoos 4 beng ded. Charley Uchea (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to reming everybody that this si not a memorial site. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Children's TV presenter arrested on suspicion of his fiancee's murder". Times. 2008-01-05. Retrieved 2008-01-05.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 37th Chess Olympiad[edit]

China at the 37th Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Orphan article that simply duplicates information already available at 37th Chess Olympiad Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. No good reason for a split. This wasn't done for the numerous other Chess Olympiads as far as I can see - Category:Chess Olympiads. If an editor wants a split they should propose it with a {{split-apart}}} tag and reach consensus. Until there is a consensus that it should be done this way, delete it since it normally isn't TheBilly (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per directly above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see the need for all of this detail to have an article. I appreciate all of the work the editor did, but I don't think Wikipedia is the proper place for it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down and comment Please don't bite the newbies!! As far as I understand the two pages China at the Chess Olympiads and China at the 37th Chess Olympiad have been created by User:Gollenaiven and they are its first contribution for Wikipedia. In that perspective his work is really impressive. So regardless of the usual discussion about notable or not, I think we should be extra-careful before taking a decision on this article, because we should not discourage a new editor who has put so much efforts in that article and is rewarded only by dry sentences like "your article will be deleted", "redundant", "simply duplicates information already available" and so on. As he is probably not aware of all our bureaucratic stuff, we should give him extra-opportunities to discuss, explain its case and understand its arguments. Probably this sounds milion miles away from any Rule or Policy, but sometimes a bit of humanity could help in Wikipedia.

Of course, if I am misguided and this user is not a new editor, everything I say hereover is just plain stupid ;-) SyG (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to discuss the merits of the article. While it's regrettable to put significant effort into an article that turns out to be unworthy of inclusion, that should not affect the decision to keep or delete this article. "Don't bite the newbies" means "Don't yell at them, don't mock them, don't call them names", etc, but it doesn't mean "throw out your good judgement". This is not his article - WP:OWN - it's the community's article. If it's bad, it needs to go. If it's good, it needs to stay. A vote of delete means "this article doesn't belong here" not "the primary contributor is stupid and I hate him" TheBilly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it is passes for notability and verifiability. Arguments for deletion I'm afraid are obsolete. It's not a straight duplication of "what's already available" in another article. Anybody who follows chess would instantly know that this not a split either. Lop.dong (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with the same reason for similar discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China at the Chess Olympiads. Dekisugi (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be kept as it doesn't satisfy any criteria under Reasons for deletion as its copied from another online encyclopedia that's not under copyvio. This is a good way of countering systemic bias against lesser profile competitive events. Humortueio (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about: WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", #4: statistics? Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These articles are regrettably 'off-message' and place far too much emphasis on China's participation. The casual reader browsing chess topic areas would be excused for thinking that some momentous China-related incidents form a substantial part of Olympiad history, but actually, there's so little text and so many statistics, I doubt whether anyone would be any the wiser upon further exploration. An encyclopedia must remain informative, even-handed and proportionate in its selection of material. In coming together, it will also benefit from following a broadly agreed direction, such as is contained in the Wiki-project Chess pages. I would however compliment the user on their unquestionable flair for editing and presentation and hope they can work with us on some of the many identified Chess projects, as they seem to have started doing already. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is raw source material, without much context or text to make it more than a collection of results. This type of information is more Wikisource than Wikipedia material, so I will have to agree with Bubba who says delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blanked by author - speedy deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr navin shah[edit]

Dr navin shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Over-selling of minor, fringe figure. The American Biographical Institute award is a vanity award (see blue link). Notability asserted, but not proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, speedy close. Author just blanked the article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; editors may merge anytime without the need for an afd. Although the concensus here was to merge, a target was not specified, so this action is being left to others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M32C[edit]

M32C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

advertising, non-notable Brouhaha (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean - subject article is notable and can be salvaged (i.e. rewriting and removing advertising etc.) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Change to Merge per TheBilly - After poking further I do agree that it is non-notable and should be merged. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 11:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful in this discussion to hear the reason you think this subject is notable, because the article doesn't establish this fact (no references) TheBilly (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup. Per WP:COMPANY, non-notable products from notable companies should generally be included in a section in the company's page, if kept at all. This article is also suspicious, though: It's written like an advertisement, with non-neutral phrasing like "the best solution for..." and "enables you to...". Chipsets and hardware product lines can be notable (see Raedon, GeForce), but this one so far hasn't established notability, and so a delete is probably even more apporpriate than merge TheBilly (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrijevic Aleksa[edit]

Fails notability for biographies, probable hoax (alleged founder of a guerrilla group, yet appears to be at a costume party). Contested {{prod}}. slakr^\ talk / 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have trouble believing that this guerilla fighter / physicist / powerlifter / politician / alcoholic / youth idol / shepherd (!) can exist without ever having been remarked on. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independently verified notability, so fails WP:NN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilesbennett (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell F. Chan[edit]

Mitchell F. Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO Legionarius (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chan has few Ghits and media mentions. No prizes in his resume.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps when he becomes more notable the article could be re-added, but for now he does fail WP:BIO. GJ (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources demomstrating notability are added. Alf^Photoman 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Pasqualini[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO
Pasqualini+pianist has only 56 Ghits, mostly from Wikipedia itself. No prizes listed. --Legionarius (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One award is claimed (without reference), but it's unclear what "Gold Medal of piano" even is. A single small award wouldn't pass WP:BIO anyway TheBilly (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any info on the award so I doubt it's major. The corresponding French article was deleted for lack of verifiable notability 10-0 (they do use a vote system), seefr:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Pages_à_supprimer/David_Pasqualini. Rigadoun (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed to find a single reference on Highbeam search OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pusspuss[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO
Pusspuss has several links in his article, but they bring mostly trivial mentions, as a google search does. I could not find news articles in Google News. Althought the article mentions an award, I could not find it, just that he performed in an award show.--Legionarius (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. -- ALLSTARecho 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please, under what criteria? Sorry, but I cannot see it.--Legionarius (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No references, so no evidence of notability. It can't possibly pass WP:MUSIC if there are no references establishing this. However, maybe something in that huge link farm establishes his notability. Any editor who wants to keep this should sort through them in a hurry TheBilly (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I meant to clean this up already but will deal with it now, although unlikely to be found in mainstream press I believe there is suffieceint refs available including a couple interviews. Benjiboi 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI could not find any. If the refs are there, could you please cite? That can save the article.--Legionarius (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also feel I must comment that I feel this AfD is a result of my recent comments about the nom's editing of Flavio Alves in response to this item on the admin bio board. Benjiboi 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about coincidences. Sorry, I never even saw you there. Admins: if you think this is grounds for exclusion, please go ahead.--Legionarius (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is quite the coincidence. I was the first reply on the admin board and, I believe, the only replies on the talk page of that article. Regardless I'm working on this now, it's long overdue for a clean-up. Benjiboi 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done. I actually just saw the creator was an IP. Please, I see Pusspuss has a broad range of activities, which one are you using as a base to claim notability?--Legionarius (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have greatly changed my plans for the day so you'll have to forgive if I don't agree with your assessment that "no harm has been done". Thanks for your keen interest in this article, I hope it is indeed improved and survives this AfD. Benjiboi 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this AfD has a long way to go, five days at least. Are you DJ Pusspuss?--Legionarius (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accused of being many of the folks in the bios I've worked on, even being a part of Rosie's O'Donnell's R Family Cruises. Because of both real world and wikipedia attacks and threats I keep my information private. I also feel you're starting to cross the line into harassment so will ask nicely for you to leave me alone. You've put the article up for AfD and now I'm addressing the AfD by improving the article. Benjiboi 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My question was just if the article was a WP:Auto or not. No worries.--Legionarius (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I felt I answered that and also feel even asking and in the manner and your responses on this page and the Flavio Alves article and admin board discussion seem at least confrontational which doesn't seem needed or within the spirit of wp. Of all the bios I've been accused of being the only i felt I needed to deny was Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) who gets daily death threats. I don't deserve to die for editing here. Benjiboi 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Benjiboi, the last thing I want to be is confrontational, and I am sorry you see it this way. If you feel I wronged or attacked you in any way, you can ask for a RfC or for help from other editors.
Talking about content: Looks like Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Benji(Benjamin?) Hollman and DJ PussPuss are all the same. [18] [19] [20]. Is this the case? Because we could merge the two articles and just sort out references and NPOV. (Sister Kitty looks notable) --Legionarius (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt your statement "the last thing I want to be is confrontational, and I am sorry you see it this way" as your actions seems to suggest otherwise. I also see that Sister Roma was at quite a few of those events as well, shall we simply merge all of them into one super-personality and call it a day? Benjiboi 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the link with Sister Roma...--Legionarius (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - you're getting close to wikistalking, Legionarius. Link one is totally not a reliable source, and links 2 & 3 don't even support your claim. And from personal knowledge, you're barking up the wrong tree. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr: Please, I am not wikistalking anyone (or stalking, for that matter). From the beginning: I just asked if Benjiboi was the subject to see if we should put a tag "auto" or not. He said he did not want to answer or that he is not the subject, does not matter. Period - no worries. Now, I was just asking if DJ Pussspuss=Benjamin Holmann=Sister Kitty so we could merge the articles and identify the person in the article. Nothing else. If he would know, great - after all, he wrote both articles. If it is not, I am happy too. About the links: first looks like is somebody from the group who (supposedly) knows Pusspuss personally and state they are the same; second: a [PR that says "Benji Holmann/DJ Pusspuss" on the right; third: a link that says that Benji Holmann is part of SFLNC. Pusspuss is not listed as a member of SFNLC, but ays so in the article. No matter what, facts: the article is much better now; I still do not think DJ Pusspuss is notable and I am dropping out of this discussion.--Legionarius (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowes[edit]

~~:David Bowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:BIO Legionarius (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nomination.--Legionarius (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowes has a long career as an artist, but it does not seem to be particularly remarkable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say he passes WP:BIO. "Bowes' work is exhibited widely in the United States, and Europe": international exhibitions are criteria for notability for visual artsts. As for secondary sources, the article already cites one article and I have added an Artforum review in External links. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please assume total good faith in my comments - you look much more experienced in the policy than me. I see his exhibitions here. But I do not see Bowes as
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work,

which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

What can be questioned is if Bowes complies to (B) below since he fails the others:

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

The galleries look respectable, but do not sound like major galleries. What do you think?--Legionarius (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think I am more experienced in this than you. My logic is simply that a) we now have two reviews of his work from significant periodicals; and b) this US artist has had, at very least, two exhibitions in France according to the artnet summary, as well as other shows. I can't tell if they represent significant exhibitions or not but my approach when it comes to serious artists is to err on the side of including, if there's any doubt. Let's see what others from the Visual Arts project will have to say, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in Artforum and Art in America, and participation in the Venice Biennale.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. those last references put the artist in a whole new light. Not so sure if he should be categorised as LGBT, because in the source he describes himself as heterosexual, being Basquiat his only same-sex relationship. Thoughts?--Legionarius (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing the nomination. Yes, I'm not so sure about the LGBT cat myself, after I read the excellent citations that have been added. He self-identifies as straight except for Michel. I used the LGBT tag instead of Gay artists, as I thought Bisexual was still applicable. However, as this is a living person who apparently self-identifies hetero, it should probably just be removed. I'll do so. Cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. --David Shankbone 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Venice Biennale selection is strong evidence of notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia E65[edit]

Nokia E65 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. There are too few substantial, reliable, third-party articles to support a meaningful wikipedia article about this product. Mikeblas (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too few indicates that this is a cookie-cutter nomination for which the sources (actual and potential) have not been properly researched. My impression is that the article is quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't attack people's nominations in this way, especially when the evidence supports the nominator's argument: One citation is broken, and the other is a forum post. The only reference at all, then, is likely unacceptable per WP:SPS. Yes, it's on Nokia's site, but it's some user's technical support question with no forum admin/mod response (rather than, say, a copy of an official announcement by Nokia on some matter posted by a mod on the company's behalf), making it WP:OR TheBilly (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely inadequate. It reads like an advertisement -- a marketing specification brochure, to be exact. What's at question is the notability of the phone. The problem with notability here is that too few reliable third party articles to support a Wikipedia article here; that is, the phone isn't notable because there aren't enough noteworthy publications about it. I'm not sure how using the phrase "too few" in the nomination disproves that assertion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point about too few is that it indicates that you either haven't checked the sources or that you are not sure how many of them are good enough. Since we don't need many sources to establish notability, the phrase indicates notability rather than the reverse. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden . Greswik (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per what I said above: No good references. One citation is broken, and the other is a forum post (a post between some average users with a tech support question, at that). Glancing at the article for 3 seconds you might be impressed at how long it is, but glancing for 4 seconds you realize it's just a copy+paste of the phone's specs. There is no encyclopedic content here. Per WP:COMPANY, non-notable products by notable companies should noramlly go in the company's article (if they're kept at all) and the content should be about the significance of the product not a list of its features. This article violates "not an indiscriminate collection of information". Cookie-cutter articles deserve cookie-cutter deletions TheBilly (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the external reference to a review as a cite and removed the bad reference. More references are out there if needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The words "non-notable" and "Nokia" can't possibly go together. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks adequate references to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 275000 Ghits I say you should be pretty much of a gambler to say there are no good refs- it's, IMHO, obvious they are there, we just haven't found them - and that's not a reason for deletion. For a ref in Norwegian - which we don't like, cause so few can read it- try [21]. This is by The Consumer Council of Norway, isn't this an example of a ref we could have used, if it just was in English? Greswik (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a Symbian Series 60 Phone. There are in no way too few applications for this OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.157.112 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that after adding his comment, 80.152.157.112 removed the AfD notice from the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fagbug[edit]

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

Non notable activism program. Most of the article is sourced from sites that are related to and not independent of the subject. The article was previously tagged as speedy delete, which was not appropriate, but I am still not convinced about notability. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability requirements as has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A single independent mention in Advocate.com does not represent significant coverage and the other references (MySpace and a personal website) are not independent of the subject. Notability is also not temporary - while the cause here is worthy it is extremely unlikely to make an enduring cotnribution to the fight against hate crimes or the advocacy of equal rights. If it does, and if it receives significant independent coverage, that will be the time to recreate this article. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Euryalus, sorry to whoever wrote this. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as said above, may be a worthy cause, and seems to be making some stir in internet gay culture pages. But it's just not made any real-world notability. Can't see any major sources that have covered it.The Zig (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant international attention...

Weak delete. Only one reliable third-party source, insufficient for an article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Reunion (Monster Allergy)[edit]

Family Reunion (Monster Allergy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV episode. Ridernyc (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster Allergy. Mh29255 (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no expertise to make a recommendation on this topic, but must ask if the other six episodes of this show which have their own articles are notable, or have they merely been overlooked? Tim Ross·^talk 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION and is an excessively lengthy plot summary that seems to border on being a derivative work. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.—Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bewitched Party[edit]

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

non-notable TV episode. Ridernyc (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster Allergy. Mh29255 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION. As the episode never aired, I'm curious as to where the huge plot summary came from (and if the level of detail for a 30 minute episode isn't bordering on a derivative work?). AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.—AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape (Monster Allergy)[edit]

The Great Escape (Monster Allergy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Ridernyc (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster Allergy. Mh29255 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION and is an excessively lengthy plot summary that seems to border on being a derivative work. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.—Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Consumer Institute[edit]

American Consumer Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied 3 times. This seems like a non-notable think tank. There are google hits because they issue press releases, but I can't seem to find any coverage independent of them. 4th speedy was apparently declined. Also, article was created by chairman of the board. Smashville^BONK! 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a lot of press releases to be found, but I am unable to find and reliable sources that are about the ACI. Additionally, the article has severe conflict of interest issues. After I noted that neutral editors needed to be involved, two new accounts magically appeared to edit the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- I agree with one of the earlier comments, the comparison between this group and other groups should be edited out, because it is difficult to verify and source.

On the other hand, I think it is otherwise accurate. I am a student at UVA and did a project on this and looked into a few of these nonprofit consumer groups-- CFA, CU, etc. That is why I added the news clip from FOX TV on this group yesterday and I believe I saw one from ABC, as well as some news clips. I can add these, when I return to school in a couple of next weeks, if the page is still available, which will address the issue of notability.
One thing troubles me, though. If you do not leave the page up for more than one day, how would you expect their to be more contributors to it? And then, the lack of contributors becomes a reason for deletion? By the way, the group's "name" was mentioned on other wiki pages for quite some time (a year?), but now it's been edited out altogether without any reason given. It seems like there is more than careful gatekeeping going on here ... --Wahoo4u (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)— Wahoo4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply - The AFD process takes place over 5 days. So that page will remain up during that period of time. Editors are free to improve the article while the article is under discussion. At issue here is notability, and specifically reliable sources about the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The group's name was added to other Wikipedia pages yesterday when the articles were created, not a year ago. --Smashville^BONK! 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source added was not about this organization, it's about printer refills...they basically reported on a press release. My other question is - why would you have to wait a couple of weeks before you go back to school to post this source you've found instead of posting it now when you clearly have access to a computer? --Smashville^BONK! 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, again?! Delete; utter spam to promote a non-notable think-thank. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable, properly speedied in the past. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reply: Do Not Delete~~- The reason why I would prefer to wait is because wikipedia does no run my life (ummm). But, since you asked, I will reply. First, any reasonable search would find numerous cites about this group (see below). Second, the reason you find many news releases from this group is because they are announcing their studies. Yes, they appear to do real research. Third, the reason why one news clip talked about computer printer ink cartridges is because they did a 50-page policy paper on the issue. So, here is the information.

Do with it what you want.

Listed as a consumer group in October 2005 by ConsumerWorld:

http://www.consumerworld.org/pages/agencies.htm

Listed as consumer group by a consumer advise website:

http://www.expert-credit-advice.com/consumer_help_links.htm

Here is a peered reviewed study on the New York Law School’s web site for the Journal (the citation is Media Law and Policy vol.16 no.2 pp.122-64.) The studies author’s Dr. Darby (a former FCC bureau chief) and Professor Fuhr are both with ACI. See:

http://www.nyls.edu/Include/Media%20Law%20and%20Policy/Vol%2016,%20No%202%20Darby%20Article.pdf

ACI study cited by the U.S. Department of Justice in one of its filings

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/223443.htm

Department of Justice refers to ACI as an advocacy group

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/workshops/telecom2007/submissions/228064.htm

U.S. Justice Department discusses ACI study in fn. 25.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/225767.htm

Seattle Times reporter discusses an ACI study

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/techtracks/archives/2007/08/

Answers.com lists ACI as a reference to information on the U.S. Economy

http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-the-united-states

The Wall Street Journal has several citings

http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/06sep/htop_netneutrality.htm

The Madison State Journal (the Wiscosin city’s newspaper) cites ACI’s research

http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/index.php?ntid=257581

Congressman Larson cites an ACI study

http://www.house.gov/larson/aestfsupporters.htm

Some Organizations citing ACI’s work:

http://reason.org a DC think-tank http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/telecom/

NextGenWeb has an ACI paper on its site

http://www.nextgenweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/aci-green-bb-benefits.pdf

NextGenWeb has a video (on UTube) on ACI’s presentation at the National Press Club

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gVy7U--G57k

A major foundation, the Markle Institute, has a reprint of our work

http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.5_issue11.pdf

InternetInnovation.org

http://www.internetinnovation.org/Editor/News/tabid/56/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/8/NewsNews-Archives.aspx

The U.S. Internet and Industry Association

http://www.usiia.org/pubs/Demand.pdf

The Wisconsin Public Policy Institute cites one of our studies at

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume%2020/Vol20No4/Vol20no4.pdf

The Truman School of Public Policy at University of Missouri has one of ACI’s PowerPoint presentations at

http://truman.missouri.edu/ipp/telecom/documents/pociask.pdf

ACI research cited at the Heartland Institute, a major U.S. think tank

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18540

The Communications Workers of America Cites ACI’s work at”

http://www.cwa4340.org/legislative/SupportSB117.pdf

Fox news cites ACI’s (Professor Darby’s) research at

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200497,00.html

The National Broadcasting Association cites ACI and other groups listed on Wiki (see several listed below) as agreeing in positions at http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases1&CONTENTID=10856&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, American Consumer Institute,

Dr. Bowe at Hofstra University cites ACI study at
http://people.hofstra.edu/frank_g_bowe/videocompetition.html

Head (?) of ACI – op-ed in Washington Times

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070902/COMMENTARY/109020022/1012

New Jersey ratepayer advocates cite aci study (at fn. 15) in filing with the FCC

http://www.state.nj.us/rpa/06-74comments.pdf
There are much much more… just look --Wahoo4u (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you care to disclose any affiliation you have with ACI? -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a student at UVA...what is this "our" stuff? Also...you can't vote twice...you can make all the comments you want, but you can't vote twice. None of the things you provided are reliable secondary sources about the subject. Reprints of material and so forth. --Smashville^BONK! 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems notable, regardless of COI; being widely cited by reputable news sources can amount to notability. Obviously needs a significant rewrite, but thats another matter. DGG (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, I agree that there may be some conflicts of interest at hand but we still need an article about the American Consumer Institute given its apparent notability. RFerreira (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. John254 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was trainwreck Will ^(talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of MU[edit]

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}}.

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

The Tales of MU Wikipedia article consists mainly of simple plot summaries, and furthermore does not refer to reliable sources outside of itself and its own websites. Mriako (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (Updated by Mriako, who made a mistake when typing and unintentionally referred to the Wiki instead of the article)

This article seems to be nothing more than an advertisement for web content, whose own webpage, interestingly enough, contains a section instructing its readers to virally market the story contained therein. This article would seem to be simply an extension of that tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.15.148 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:06:06
Anyone who actually read the website would know that the above thinly-veiled accusation is false, as the author had nothing to do with the creation of the wiki entry. Cromage (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the author of the webpage not only didn't encourage this wikipedia article but has actively discouraged people from bothering try to put her into a non-notable, non-credible "source" like Wikipedia through her own blog and while she pointed out this undoutedly briefly-lived article in a post on Tales of MU titled "Blink and you'll miss it", she did so only as a matter of interest. My viral marketing campaign wouldn't be half as successful as it was if it depended on capturing the attention of an institution like Wikipedia which is engaged in slow ritual suicide, eternally seeking to shed its credibiilty with the people most inclnied to trust it in Quixotic pursuit of academic respectability. Seriously, look at the stance here: nothing is notable if it's in a source that's online where anybody can post? Really shooting yourself in the foot there, Wikitards. Ten years from now, people will still read my stories but nobody'll read Wikipedia except the community of people who treat it as a game/chatroom/fiefdom. Talk to me about notability then, and for the love of all that's holy and most things that aren't, get this article out of here. 72.213.46.52 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Alexandra Erin)[reply]
There you have it, folks. The author herself (himself, if another contributor to this discussion is to be believed?) doesn't even want this article here. She's too good for us. But of course the fanboys and -girls aren't going to care about the author's wishes, in true fanboy/girl tradition. They won't respect the author's wishes, or the Wikipedia guidelines, or the relevant facts of the matter. All they care about is getting an article about their favorite novelty story enshrined among the actual worthwhile knowledge contained on Wikipedia, so they can point to it and claim it's worthwhile too. It's very interesting to look at the blog entry directing them to this page, and see the responses to it. The prevailing theme is the standard party line of anti-Wikipedia hypocricy: "Yeah, Wikipedia sucks because its guidelines are too strict, but I'll keep using it for research anyway because it's just so darn useful!" Well, people, that's what Wikipedia is for: RESEARCH. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Until there are people who don't know much about this story and want to research it and find out about it, there's no need for it to be here. And that's not going to happen until the story is well-known enough that people have heard about it a few times without having actually been to the website. In other words, as another editor has repeatedly stated, (and been repeatedly ignored for stating,) when it becomes culturally relevant, then it will have a place here. Those who claim otherwise simply don't understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.207.176.6.60 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the fans want, or think of Wikipedia (or for that matter, what the author herself thinks of the debate, as long as it does not violate the rights over her work) is irrelevant to this discussion on deletion. What matters is the claim of cultural relevance (which has been ignored since it was poorly defined). The fact of the matter is, many people *do* want to research about the story without having read it previously, and I'm curious as to how you believe otherwise. The readerbase for the story grows daily, so it is perfectly logical to assume that not only are people hearing about this story, they want to know more. Just because there are no "scholarly works" based on the article, or is written on Wordpress (what does that have to do with anything? Half the webcomics listed are Keenspace hosted or were at time of article creation), does not mean that something is not "culturally relevant." PS: Look up transgenderism before you say something embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Mu is an example of a new form of literature which is neither a series of essays or a novel, lending it artistic merit worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.160.121 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:10:07
As such it would more properly be included in an entry about the author, Alexandra Erin, as works by more traditional authors are listed/summarized in entries about those more traditional authors. Why shouldn't a web-published author be treated the same as traditionally-published authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.11.50 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:22:51

My question is in what way this article is different from (for example) the "I am legend," entry? Are you suggesting that web content is less valuable than books and movies? Odd stance for a web page to take. However, this entry is incomplete and should be a stub for a larger article linking tales of Mu, star harbor nights, tribe, and void dogs. It should probably have a link to the Baen free library, and some of the discussions about the differences between the Baen approach and the AE approach. Aaror 12:14, 4 January 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.245.157 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:15:14
Aaror: This article differs from the "I Am Legend" entry in that it does not refer to any reliable sources aside from itself and its own websites. Furthermore, as stated before, the article in question consists mainly of plot summaries and non-verifiable information, whereas the "I Am Legend" entry (and those like it) contain not only a plot synopsis, but also information on production and critical references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mriako (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:23:17

Wikipedia isn't about "valuable" content, which is an extremely subjective term. It's about "notable" (culturally significant) content. I Am Legend was a major motion picture. This is some story that nobody's ever heard of, being written on WordPress. There are plenty of valuable websites and web-based content articles listed on Wikipedia. It's not about the medium, it's about the notability. 71.113.15.148 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to correct that, actually. It's not something that nobody has ever heard of, as several people associated with Baen Books have taken an active interest in Alexandra Erin and her work model. Tales of MU is not notable because of its story, but because of the way in which it is published and the discussions between Alexandra Erin and various other authors due to this fact. I pose, in fact, that its notability stems from it being a poster child of a new method of publishing and as such deserves a page just as much as Bob and George, another example of a pioneer in a previously untamed field. My point is this. Webcomics in general are not notable. Web serials in general are not notable. Flagships of each ARE notable so long as it is remembered that their notability stems from their flagship status and not from any other source. --72.230.79.43 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This only qualifies as a "flagship" if it becomes notable (culturally relevant.) You think this is the first person who's ever tried to publish a serial novel online? We just haven't heard of them because nobody's succeeded. When Alexandra Erin's book transitions from some story someone's posting on some blog that (maybe) a few hundred people read, to a successful self-published story that the general public has heard of (Eragon would be a good example,) then it will be noteworthy.71.113.15.148 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. Do you honestly believe that "the general public" knows about webcomics, or has even heard of Bob and George? Just because the "general public" doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not culturally relevant. Or, for that matter, doesn't mean it's not successful. 68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Tales of MU Wiki, it's a Wikipedia article. I'd have thought that would be obvious, but I guess not. Tales of MU is a web fiction series with 129 chapters which have been published in 3 printed books so far. 24.16.133.146 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is not considered reasonable as a stand-alone, may I suggest incorporating it into the current Wikipedia Article for "serial novel"
As one of the first examples of this ancient format in a new medium, and the print versions also available, this seems to EASILY reach the notability requirements.
As for issues concerning 'lack of references' as far as I can tell this article is less than a day old. Give it a little time to ripen. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.42.171 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion policy page, "pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion," and considering that this was nominated less than six hours after the page was created, I feel that this page was not given an appropriate chance to become a valid article. Certainly if the discussions between AE and the various people of Baen were to be linked, and the controversial nature of the publishing form were to be expanded upon, this could become quite valid, and well-supported. Also, the possibility of moving this to a page about Alexandra Erin was mentioned. I would be in favor of this, as it matches what I see happening with series by other authors. If such a new page were to be created, I feel that the information of primary importance would be AE's discussions on the viability of the web-publishing model which she follows. --72.230.79.43 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quitting one's job to work full-time on web-based publishing is hardly something new or novel. Howard Tayler did that years ago, and he wasn't the first to do so either. 71.113.15.148 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Tayler is a webcomic artist. Many webcomic artists have followed suit, but economically successful serialized novels are a relatively new phenomenon. Cromage (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that it is Alexandra Erin (who has multiple web serials) and not ToMU specifically, who meets notability standards at this time, and that she ought to have an article which includes ToMU, just like a standard author page. The controversy over her business model within the realm of web-based serial fiction (Baen, et al) is itself notable. ToMU is not, as someone suggested above, "some story that no one has ever heard of" - it's a popular and controversial new series by a relatively well-established serial novelist, but most of the notability factor here is AE's. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permissible to create an article for a person whose only identity is a pseudonym? I am 99% sure "Alexandra Erin" is not the author's real name. It is also entirely possible that we don't even know his/her actual sex. --24.184.171.125 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get this information? Though I am by no means an expert on the subject, I've never heard anything that would support the fact that Alexandra Erin is male, nor that she is not, in fact, Alexandra Erin. As far as entries for pseudonyms, though I recognize your point on the SOLE identity being a pseudonym, I believe that everyone would consider Mark Twain to be notable, even if his real name were not known. Rowenlemming (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra Erin is indeed not the author's legal name. Check out her Paypal account; it says Alexander. She is biologically male, but mentally female. I realise this is slightly mind-blowing for some people. I know I was taken aback when I learnt it. However, as Alexandra Erin is the name under which she is most notable, and she wishes to be known under that name, it would be entirely reasonable to use that name as an article title about her. Crispy (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Eliot's pen name was both non-gender-normative and not her given name; she's got her own wikipedia article under her pseudonym because it's the one under which she's notable. (Of course, GE is notable for other reasons and I'm not drawing a direct parallel; I was just pointing that out.)--Parcequilfaut (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, though I personally enjoy Tales of MU, it is not notable in the sense that it is encyclopedic. Alexandra Erin, however, is, and the sooner one of you wikipedians turn that into a blue link the better, for reasons not only of her burgeoning success but also of her pioneer status in the serial web novel business model. Rowenlemming (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on adding some references to the article. In the mere seven(!) hours since it was created, it's come a very long way. I've seen much worse articles on Wikipedia that have not been nominated for deletion so quickly. So, I recommend that the article be retained to begin with. The decision can be reviewed in one month if the powers that be so demand. Crispy (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. But what are needed here are sources that are not self-published and that are reliable. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone: I agree with Crispiness, above. Give it some time...something good may come out of it. "Wikipedia is not paper," as they say, and there's no harm in letting this article take up a few bytes while it gets fleshed out for better or worse.Munion (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argument does not hold water. See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the editors above. This article definitely needs some time to grow and be discussed before deletion is even considered. --KharBevNor (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argument does not hold water. See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "notable" an objective or subjective measurement? When you consider how small a percentage of the people who visit a website will donate money to the cause (wikipedia a case in point), a large number of people must be reading this "unknown" work every day for it to be generating so much income that the author can quit her day job. One would think sheer force of numbers would render it notable. If, however, notability must be achieved in the minds of some unnamed Notability Board one can hardly support Wikipedia's claims to be universal64.252.103.144 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)PCB[reply]
Popularity is not our decision criterion. We don't include or exclude things based upon their fame. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, what are required are multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that document this subject in depth. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is an encyclopaedia. It is not in the business of documenting the undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails because its subject is not notable -- no independant and reliable source of review, only self-publication. The author is, I would suggest, also non-notable -- again there are no independant source reviews etc, there appears to be some doubt about the person's true name.identity, and it may well be that this person has expressed the view that s/he ought not to be on Wiki (see above), and has effectively declared h/erself non-Wiki-notable. If this article is kept, then I imagine all all other self-promoting web-authors will demand entries, as well as all sorts of people with a good reason to hide their identity, wh will want to use Wki as a means of shoring up a pseudonym (of which we have enough) -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of external references-
For Tales of Mu:
http://www.fictionpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9457

http://www.thegeekreview.com/2007/08/

For Pages Unbound:
http://www.metafilter.com/tags/books

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:f_1jCmrlNuYJ:darwinstheories.blogspot.com/+%22Pages+Unbound%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blook

For the Author's pen name - Alexandra Erin:
http://www.secretworldchronicle.com/links.php

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hilaristurbing

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlexandraErin

I would suggest that some of these are clearly indpendent and reliable reviews and while other self promoting authors may wish to have articles, clearly they only deserve them if they are successfully promoted. This criteria is the same for ALL creators, i.e. if you are successful and become an influence on the world around you, your work should be noted for future reference. Needless to mention, several of the references I found and discarded were people talking about Ms. Erin's work and how they were inspired to start writing themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.8.11 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. But several of those don't cut the mustard. Wikipedia is not a source at all. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Neither is a page on a self-submission wiki. A page that is just a list of links to web sites is not a source, since it doesn't actually contain any discussion of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone: I don't understand why the rush to delete this article, either, unless the conclusion of Wikipedia is that serials are not notable per se, which I'm sure is not the case. Give it a minute, or give Alexandra Erin her own article, I say. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The immediately preceding rationale, like so many others here, is not grounded in our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and carries no weight at all. If you want to make an argument that has any weight at all, you must do what 192.172.8.11 has tried to do above: cite sources. You have until the end of the AFD discussion period. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I wasn't able to find anything that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). So, reluctantly, I can't support a keep for this page.—RJH (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, awesome, someone actually put it on wikipedia, talk about advertisement! Now before it gets deleted a dozen people will learn about it via deletion debate. However, unless there's been a verfiable third-party source writing about it, it's non-notable for web content. Delete, and go read it, people that haven't ;-P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuronue (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Hoffman

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

The result was speedy deleted by Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) under CSD:A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hoffman[edit]

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

Three persons listed in the article seem non-notable and article doesn't assert their importance. Wikiolap (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all three Hoffman's fail the notability guideline. The first could potentially be notable as a senior manager at Kowabunga, but does not appear to have been the subject of mentions in reliable secondary sources, and fails WP:BIO. "Senior Affiliate Manager" may not be as important as it sounds either - I cannot find any reference to this person either at Kowabunga's website or at the parent company Think Partnership. The second and third Hoffmans don't even attempt to assert notability. We know about their dog's name, their ear candling and that one of them was a Marine. We don't have anything to suggest they justify a Wikipedia page. Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO x 3. No sources to attribute notability, no real claims either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - horrible article about insignificant people, this is no way to build an encyclopedia. Greswik (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!: Greg Hoffman is the world famous belly flopper. He is entitled a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.49.222 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the most notable Greg Hoffman. I have been working online as a PR/Marketing expert since 1998. I am known as the Marketing Gorilla. Check out my 80+ web references on two zoominfo.com profiles:
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=17791592&QueryID=62d2a047-53d3-4ed3-88e8-c2b08546d229
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=1210998323&QueryID=62d2a047-53d3-4ed3-88e8-c2b08546d229
I was the Director of the Kowabunga affiliate network until recently when I moved into a senior manager role to participate in commissions and bonuses. My goal online is to remain number one for my name in Google and you can search my blog for references to that task. The other two Greg Hoffman's must have read about my Wikipedia find and started deleting my profile so they would be listed. That's why I attempted to share the page with them.
Visit my blog and see what I am doing for my 100,000 plus affiliates in the industry. I'm posting videos to help them make money online. This blog will only increase in subscriptions and reciprocal links. I have nearly 300 links through Google and 3200 links on Yahoo for www.internetmarketinggorilla.com
I am the notable Greg Hoffman on the Internet and I deserve the wikipedia page.
Please let me know what else I can furnish as evidence.

Delete Comments above only confirmed my thoughts that the article was a vanity piece that does not meet notability requirements. OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Since, unusually, it's about three people with the same name, I used G11 blatant advertising, which it sort of is, although could be speedied as A7 too. Definitely not notable, makes no claims of significance or reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect (a form of Keep) article should be merged and redirected per concensus by interested editor(s) immediately, as this is not being perfomed by the closing admin. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Valley Middle School[edit]

Deer Valley Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This middle school is non-notable; I checked on Google and Google news and all I found were [22] and [23] which are more about the district's struggle to comply with the Americans w/Disabilities Act. The page consists of a brief description and a mission statement, and was created by the school's webmaster. When I suggested a merge to the district page, and when I removed the mission statement, I was reverted. Currently, the page has no independent, third party sources demonstrating notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to district page. This school is non notable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Deer Valley Unified School District, unless additional material can be added to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deer Valley Unified School District like J-stan has mentioned. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable, NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to district page, unless this school is somehow special. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. --VS ^talk 06:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-conquest narrative[edit]

Anti-conquest narrative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A contextless, unreferenced orphan, don't have any idea what it is about, only activity in two-and-a-half years are a few edits by the ubiquitous stub-sorters and re-sorters, don't know what they based those on. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a capital D. Nick mallory (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Postcolonial literature. It's a genuine term for a body of literature that recasts colonised people as victims rather than dangerous enemies. There is also an aspect that relates to feminist literature but I have no proper sources handy so I've left it out. There is no need for a separate article on this topic so I have merged the content into "Post-colonial literature" where it belongs. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It probably is possible to write an independent article on this topic, although few editors would be qualified to do it. There's a good number of Google Book hits for "anti-conquest" ([24])Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to have little content and is confusing and unnecessary. Marlith 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a widely used and important concept in post-colonial studies, and a number of fields of history. This is certainly content suitable for an encyclopedia. In any case, I've expanded it. Just because you don't understand it, don't mean its for deletion (if that were the case then most maths articles would be gone) Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wasn't very civil of me... sorry. It is in widespread use however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a writer coins a phrase doesn't mean that phrase is notable. It has to enter the common currency of literature, academia or every day life. I understand what the phrase means, the point is whether it's a notable phrase. Nick mallory (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the Google Book hits, it seems like the term pops up frequently in literary studies. Zagalejo^^^ 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per this set of results which excludes the name of the academic who coined the phrase.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lum the Mad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lum the Mad

Articles for deletion/Lum the Mad (second nomination)

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

The article is original research with no reliable sources that can be used to verify notability. There is nothing in the article that suggests this person is any more notable than thousands of other site owners, commentators and bloggers who cover the MMORPG subject area. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the comments in the first nomination, this individual and his website were extremely well-known and influential within the early MMO industry. --El on ka 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are fine and all, but where are the sources? Unless sources can be provided which support the claims made in the first nom, this article needs to go. As it is, the prose is horribly sloppy, and the lack of sources makes it look like something slapped together by the author for a personal website. If you can provide reliable sources which show the notability, I'm fine with the article being kept. However, it's been in this state since the first nom nearly three years ago, and nothing has changed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing it to AfD may have the unfortunate affect of leaving it both unchanged and deleted. Which is unfortunate, because there are, according to Google Books[25], at least four books that mention Lum the Mad (ISBN 0596007140, ISBN 0226096262, ISBN 1592730000, ISBN 0262201631) and possibly one book written by Scott Jenning a.k.a. Lum the Mad (ISBN 0471752738). I won't have the available time within seven days to check out these books (possibly through interlibrary loan) and write a decent article. If anyone else does, please feel free to use these resources. It would be a shame to lose this article due to lack of sources, which are clearly available. --Iamunknown 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it could be unfortunate, the article has been marked since April 2007 as not having any references. That's more than enough time to get books through interlibrary loan. If you can get them and the article is deleted, I'd be happy to have it moved to your userspace where you could bring it up to standards and then move it back to mainspace. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really researched this topic, so don't take this as a Keep or Delete !vote. But just as a general point, there is no rule that an article must be referenced and cleaned up by the end of an AFD (with the exception of copyvios and BLP issues). If sources are shown to exist, then we should allow some time for interested editors to fix the article. There is no deadline, after all. (Most of the info in this article is probably true, anyway.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, his name also appears in the index of this book and this book (using Amazon's search book function). Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you view the index? SharkD (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you click "Search inside", you can usually see the index (although you may need to have an Amazon account). Zagalejo^^^ 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait. The index isn't visible for the second book. I think I just typed "Lum the Mad" in the search bar and browsed through the text previews. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book Lum the Mad wrote is called Massively Multiplayer Games For Dummies. SharkD (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search using Google Scholar results in four hits. SharkD (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those editors above who say that books are available, I'd say go ahead and add listings for those books to the article. I may have access to them as well, but I'll echo what other people have said here, which is that AfD is not something that should be used as a tool for "Hurry and clean up the article right away." If it's obvious that sources exist, and the consensus is that the article should be kept, then tag the article as needing cleanup (which I do agree it obviously needs), and let's move on. There's no urgency involved. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. --El on ka 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any urggency at all. It's been three years (almost) since the last AfD, and about 9 months since the {{unreferenced}} tag was added to the article. Surely that's more than enough time to get a book through interlibrary loan. It could be sent the slowest possible method and be shipped around the world in nine months, let alone three years. This article has had more than enough time to be cleaned up, and no one has done anything with it in that time. Again, I'm fine with it being kept if it can actually be shown that this individual is notable, but unless that happens, this article shouldn't be here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, AFD was totally different back then; nominators didn't demand sources as tenaciously as they do now. And unreferenced tags are generally ineffective. This is probably the first time the article has been seriously challenged. So let's not worry about how much time has passed; let's turn our attention to the potential sources mentioned above. Do those provide enough information to write a decent Wikipedia article? I'm not sure myself, since I can only see previews of those books (and in some cases, only the indexes). But maybe someone else can chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the appropriate factor here is WP:V and this doesn't work with it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether added to the article or not, I am convinced by the above debate that reliable sources exist. User:Krator (t c) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just completed a major overhaul of the article. I removed some poorly-sourced information, added several new sources (thanks to everyone above that provided the ISBNs), and completely reorganized the rest of it. As a caveat, I freely admit that I work in the online game industry, so my edits could be seen as potentially exhibiting a conflict of interest. I encourage review and if necessary, change, of anything that I did. --El on ka 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the complete revamp of the article, I withdraw my nomination and support the Keeping of this article. Thank you to those who improved it, whether by editing or providing references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the revamp clearly demonstrates the notability of this person and passes WP:BIO easily. The reference to Something Awful on the otherhand is original research and should be removed. RFerreira (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I went ahead and removed the Something Awful mention. --El on ka 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this item was also posted for review at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I had to read the article anyway, I decided to join in here as well. The article ought to be shorter, and some of the information that is not so well-sourced should be removed. Ideally the information in an article about a person should come from what others have written about him, and it's not certain that that's the case here. That could represent a problem of inadequate sources. The article is somewhat like a resume, and for the most part, it reports his opinions without showing how significant others thought his opinions were. The only exception I noticed is the quote from Carless (recently added by Elonka), which to me is the clearest statement of Jennings' importance to be found in a reliable source: "The site and Lum's opinions became very popular, and the Lum site became one of the most respected sources of MMOG news on the Internet." By contrast, Taylor's book quotes six sentences from Jennings but doesn't say anything about his importance in the industry. Even now the lead goes a bit ahead of what the sources say in terms of his importance, but I'm sure it can be tweaked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to Elonka for the rewrite. JavaTenor (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Website is featured in the press, has some reputable sources.PeaceNT (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FlightMemory[edit]

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

A website for people to log their air miles. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... No, no it's not notable. If there's some independent coverage of the site, even if in specialty publications such as those for aviators, then perhaps there may be some measure of notability. However, my search doesn't come up with any such coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- narrowly meets the notability criteria for web content with mentions in reliable secondary sources including USAToday & Times Online (bnoth footnoted in the article), as well as here. Each article is fairly short but more than a routine listing of the web address or content description. On balance this looks like enough to meet the notability guide. Euryalus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- creator here. While it may be more notable in my eyes because I follow some forums where it's discussed, it's also been covered in mainstram press as Euryalus indicates above. I *believe* I've seen more specialised discussion/coverage (non forum) but I need to do some link digging because it's not on this laptop and may not be easily findable in Google. As I said to RHaworth, I have no problem with whatever the consensus is, I challenged the original ProD because it was my opinion that the reason for nomination wasn't clear. I standby that this isn't spam and no COI since I'm only a user of the site, same as other sites on the web -- no vested interest in it being here other than a desire to contribute to Wikipedia and an opionion that it was notable. Travellingcari (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet the nobility guidelines, and it doesn't sound like CoI at all. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the sources cited in FlightMemory#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this website per the general notability guideline. John254 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. DS (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Jimenez[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:N regarding this individual. Further, article appears to be nothing more than a rehash of a single news article. Mh29255 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a major government official, he should be notable enough. The page isn't exactly what I'd call neutral (balance-wise) though. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jiminez is (or was) a public figure with a very senior ministerial rank. Being a foreign minister of a recognised nation is a sufficient assertion of notability. I agree the article should contain more than his drink-driving offence but am having trouble adding to it as all the relevant sourceas are in Spanish. Can any Spanish-speaking Wikipedians help out? Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Sounds like this person may have notability, but with nothing else in the article, the DWI seems to have a bit of undue weight. Afraid I can't help with the spanish sources.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the former Foreign Minister of Honduras this individual is obviously notable. The article certainly needs more information to provide balance, but he is clearly notable. I would suggest that the nominator reads WP:N again, especially as they originally nominated this for a speedy deletion. HookOnTheWall (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a former Foreign Minister of a sovereign nation.... Honduras' equivalent to Condi Rice. --Tocino 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course...it's worrying to see that there is someone who feels that a country's foreign minister isn't notable. Suggest closing this early. Everyking (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can't think of a single instance in which a cabinet minister of any soverign nation wouldn't be notable. matt91486 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as national level cabinet minister. A Google/Google News/Google Books search shows sources going back to 1982 as a human rights activist and continuous coverage from 2006-2008, although many of the sources are in Spanish. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I'm with the others; frankly, with nearly a thousand edits under nom's belt and having been on Wikipedia nearly two years, I'm beyond astonished, and implore nom to read up on the rules under which he files AfDs. RGTraynor 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with a suggestion for bold editors to merge/ redirect as they see fit. There was no clear concensus as to WHERE to merge/redirect this content, and merge does not require deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Malak[edit]

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

This article cites no claims of notability, and presently consists only of an extended plot summary. I tried PRODding it some time ago, but to no avail. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, non notable. Redirect to List of Star Wars characters or Knights of the Old Republic. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. There are no reliable sources of any sort. There is no sane arguement for keeping or merging this article, as it is basically an essay by an editor on their favorite character. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a notable character that can be verified with reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character can be verified, but can the character's notability be verified? —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge ~~I removed the original PROD, and I stand by my argument then, this character is the main villain of one of the most popular video games of our time as such he is inherently notable.~~ TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the contrary, notability of a character is not inherited from notable source material. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion to merge after reading several of the other comments in this discussion while I agree that Malak does not deserve an article of his own this information is useful and should be merged with the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of KOTOR character. Game is notable, and that's covered in the game's article; character within it, however, has garnered no significant third-party coverage and there's no real-world information about development, reaction, etc. Doesn't pass WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment There appears to be a fairly significant number of references to him in the news, but frankly I don't know enough to have a clue here, so !vote for me. Hobit (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links, however, appear to assert notability outside of the game. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do they need to? I mean Luke Skywalker isn't really notable outside of Star Wars. Sure, everyone knows who he is, but I can't say he's notable outside of it. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, there's a wealth of material on the character's development; there is also merchandising, critics' response to the character as a protagonist, spoofing/derivative material, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per argument from TonyBallion This is a notable character from a notable game. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you offer substantiation to the claim that the character itself -- rather than just the game it appears in -- is notable? --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, a perfectly suitable (and notable) place to cover the character. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect This character is not notable in the real world, only barely within the game, and as we know, notability is not inherited. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. Redirecting to the game article itself doesn't tell much about the character; cruft should be eliminated, but we are first and foremost a reference website, and eliminating cruft at the expense of being actually useful is a bad thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - unless establishes individual notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The marching peanut[edit]

The marching peanut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks to me like a blatant hoax (Zero google hits on the title or the director). — iridescent 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Probably crosses line between hoax and patent nonsense --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jittelar[edit]

The article appears to be a hoax edit. I was copyediting when I realised what I was reading! Romans versus Persians in Iberia... LuckyThracian 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability is not there. A probable hoax because a Google search came up with: Results 1 - 10 of about 64 for Jittelar. (0.28 seconds) Tavix (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think this refers to the Theme of Iberia, not the Iberian Peninsula. The Romans (Byzantines) certainly fought the Persians in the Iberian Theme which is modern-day Turkey. However:

1) the article is unsourced and I cannot find any relevant references to "Jittelar" either on-line or off;

2) The article states that that a "jittelar" formation was especially effective at protecting halberdsmen. The Iberian Theme was conquered in the 11th century and the halberd was invented in the 14th. This strongly suggests there were no halberdsmen in the Roman Army to be protected via Jittelars or any other formation and that a central premise of the article is false.

3) The article provides no context, no description of the formation and no explanation for its effectiveness. This sorry state has existed for two years as part of the extremely active military history Wikiproject, suggesting that if such a formation existed it must have been pretty non-notable.

I would be happy to be proved wrong by soemone producing a credible source for such a formation existing. In its absence and on balance the lack of sources, context and chronological credibility suggest a hoax or at best a non-notable term. Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by Euryalus. I did a similar search online and found no relevant references to "Jittelar". Mh29255 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax - certainly fails WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. — Scientizzle 19:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Cartoon[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon. Kannie | talk 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete violates the core policy of verifiability, add on to that the failure of WP:N and WP:FICT RMHED (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A speculative and unsourced article about an unpublished (and apaprently unwritten) cartoon. Article creator admits it is not notable but suggests it might be one day, which is when this article should be receated. Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I already removed a "vanity" link from the cartoon page, which I watch. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having read WP:CRYSTAL I see how this does not work. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and fast. --EndlessDan 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Author himself/herself stated in the article that the subject was not notable; speedy per CSD criteria. P.B. Pilhet 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete per everyone's arguments.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedily deleted by Jj137 per WP:CSD#G7 after author requested deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nancy Mroczek[edit]

Dr Nancy Mroczek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom; I've just declined a speedy request on this one, on the basis of the publications and TV appearances, but any notability seems so minor that she's right on the WP:PROF borderline; bringing her over here to get a consensus. — iridescent 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only gets 175 ghits, no google news archive hits and no google scholar hits. Only real claim is that she appears on a local Boston cable show, looks like a vanity article to me. RMHED (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete she doesn't come anywhere near passing WP:PROF, so I think notability relies on her passing WP:MUSIC, or whether things like [26] & [27] (FWIW I'm a big 'X' fan so I tried downloading the mp3s, didn't work) amount to "extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources", I think neither of those fly. So, non-notable, but I'd go to the bar if they were playing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious vanity article, no real claims to notability. --Crusio (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Dr Nancy Mrocaek is a welknown radio personality and a subject matter expert in futures trading. In psychology she has number of articles published already. She is an environmentalist and also animal rights activist. An allround personality like Dr. Nancy is worth mentioning on wiki -- nanpro

— nanpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
comment ISI WoS has three cited articles for "Mroczek, NS" they are: "THESIS U MINNESOTA" and "DISS ABSTR INT B" cited once each, and a journal article "LAB ANIM (1992) 21:27" cited a mere three times. Google scholar turns up more publications, but none of the others by her show any citations (although I stopped looking after the first five pages of results). I just don't think that kind of scientific output passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Kannie | talk 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Highbeam.com search brought up a few local articles on this woman, if anything they convinced me further this woman does not meet notability requirements.OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnotable --Drhlajos (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn after article rewritten. W.marsh 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital double[edit]

Note: Page moved to Virtual human

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

This page has multiple issues and was tagged to be a hoax twice. It is an article for something that is projected to happen in 2017 and so that is crystal balling for something 9 years in the future. Tavix (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: article is likely WP:HOAX and violates Wikipedia is not a cyrstal ball. Mh29255 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there could be an article at this title, what is currently there doesn't seem anywhere close. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's total rewrite. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zetawoof, reason for deletion is now invalid.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per name-change and rewrite, now reads much better. And kudos to User:Uncle G for his constant article fixing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should no longer be considered for deletion at this point, we are talking about a completely different article that has been rewritten. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. This article has recieve a total remake since I nominated to the point where it almost a completely different article. Tavix (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, marginal but acceptable speedy request, AfD was going delete anyway. GDonato (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Dingus[edit]

Anti-Dingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The band does not meet notability requirements for WP:MUSIC. They have appeared on one compilation album of unclear notability. There are approximately 46 "unique" results for a Google search of "Anti-Dingus". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only assertion of notability is an album to be released later this year which violates WP:NOT#CBALL. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wholly unnotable, per WP:MUSIC. It's also a bad sign when the creator of the page states, "I created an article for the band Anti-Dingus. I've known and been a fan of this band for awhile and feel it's time to give them an article." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For Seicer, the above was a typo. It means "I've known OF and been a fan.."

Lifebaka, I did not violate that. It is 100% certain that there will be an EP released by this band in 2008. It's been confirmed on multiple occasions.
I know this is from the author of the article, but someone else who posted on the discussion page says:

"In the introdution to WP:MUSIC you'll notice that the whole system is a rule of thumb. It's a high-quality article, I say let it stay. "

Citing from:
"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.
Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." Takenforaride77 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No coverage through all 46 hits (the ones that were not deemed similar to others) aside from MySpace, a site offering show tickets around Allentown PA (where the band seems to have originated), and the promotions group that they work with per the article. No independent sources, and what's available gives no information that the group meets WP:MUSIC guidelines, nor is there anything that demonstrates they will anytime soon. Aeternitas827 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many bands "promise" to come out with an album, but even if they always came through (which many don't), WP:MUSIC isn't fulfilled by self-burned CDs. The History section of this article bolsters the premise that this is another teenage garage band. Ravenswing 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of countless bands with a couple of songs, a Myspace page, and no assertion of notability. --Stormie (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Utterly non-notable band.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable band. Delete. Jmlk 1 7 08:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Tower[edit]

Da Vinci Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Proposed building, no assurance this will ever be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia has tons of articles on proposed towers. I know other stuff exists isn't a valid argument, but if the statement about each floor rotating individually can be sourced, the article is notable enough to remain. If that source is found, I'll be a keep vote. Wonderful. Definitely a strong keep now. matt91486 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Im exactly with you on that. Such a feature would provide notability. But until that can be sourced I remain Opinion reserved Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Keep - Im sold on the improvments. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable through unique feature, and 68 stories is particularly high - a few years ago this would have been one of the tallest in the world. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

313m would put it at 29th highest building in the world, although likely to be lesser by time of construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if the project goes further than just being "proposed". Greswik (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In principle, unbuilt architecture can be just as important to architectural progress as the built stuff - see the Crystal Chain or most of Zaha Hadid's work until the early '90s or even the Mile high tower by FLW. So the argument that it's not built yet doesn't really hold much water - The idea of a tower with individually rotating apartments is what's important - get a source for that, eg. here (top of the google search - something more academic would be preferable) and you have established notablilty - so keep (see also Chicago Spire for an example of how a similar article could be with a little encouragement). --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am convinced by the arguments put forth by Joopercoopers and others., Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made major edits to the article. It is now well sourced and contains important and noteworthy information. Also, this article should not be deleted because it will be the world's first prefabricated skyscraper, will rotate, and will be powered by environmentally friendly sources. That sounds notable to me. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Joopercooper's arguments, and Leitmap's sources. According to the article, it is expected to be finished by 2009-- that's next year. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a well-sourced interesting article on what promises to be a most unique structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it is a proposed structure, judging by reports of the tower, it seems very likely that the tower will get built.--OOODDD (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator's concerns but I also agree with much of the keep rationale, and while I am dwelling here on my concerns, my opinion is that I think this article should be kept. The project has a revolutionary premise quite literally, and the article is written in a very affirmative and certain tone about about it when it hasn't been built—the promise does appear to me to have the crystal ball quality cited by the nominator. What makes this different than the Chicago Spire, Mile High Towers and other examples cited by Joopercoopers is that those are notable by dint of their architects who are in more established, if only by a few years in the case of Calatrava, than the architect of this tower, and have more extensive sources available on them. Another good comparison is Tatlin's Tower which had a helix structure and rotating volumes within. Well on second thought, Leslie E. Robertson the structural engineer of this project has an article here already, and I guess I want to hear more about David Fisher than we already have. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal article, I'm reluctant from not seeing print sources cited in the article, these may be good sources to cite [28] [29] and here is an article by Blair Kamin [30] to help the article were to lean away from the architect's claim directly from their site, which may or may not prove to be true. Having much of the article sourced to the architect's webpage, which is essentially self published, seems not entirely reliable in this case of such a daring proposed feat. I also found a link to a BBC TV News story [31] which portrays it in a somewhat neutral and skeptical tone. While I'm here I want to note that it seems to excessive to me is that we have a page for every proposed Dubai skyscraper, instead of a thorough page on new developments in Dubai, but that this project seems exceptional in many ways. The article as written strongly agrees with the architect that this will work and succeed in its goals, which I guess even if it this ends up to be incorrect and it doesn't work out we can always update it the article then. This already looks like a clear keep, but I thought I would make a few comments anyways. Yours, dvd rw 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Bull (Moving Brands)[edit]

James Bull (Moving Brands) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Semi-promotional piece on a person of doubtful notability Mattinbgn\^talk 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not free promotional website with high google rank. Miami33139 (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, and is written like an ad. Macy's 123 review me 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Speedy deleted CSD A1, joke or hoax, not a real term. MECU≈talk 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Speed[edit]

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

Cannot find anything about this (drug?), maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sudoku424 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like anti-LSU nonsense to me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 very short article with little or no context.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep, and a very obvious one at that; the patroller who tagged this for deletion actually !voted keep in the discussion too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: After this AfD was closed, the page has been moved to Juiced ball theory and the redirect deleted. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Juiced ball" theory[edit]

"Juiced ball" theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. A newpage patroller tagged this article for deletion. As the sole author so far, my opinion on the matter does not need to be stated. :) This is most definitely a notable topic, and I'd very much like the chance to prove it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did not notice that the article was under construction, so I tagged it too soon. This is a worthy subject and should not be deleted. DS2434 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A {{hangon}} would have worked just fine--I would have declined the speedy myself but I was 30 seconds too late... I read a lot about this many years ago, so the topic has some merit, but I could see that this might be better served as a section in Baseball (ball). — Scientizzle 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a worthy subject for an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable theory, and it seems that every major source agrees on the theory's name. However, I have issues about using quotes in the article title, but that's something that can be fixed with a routine page move. But to avoid confusion, I will wait for closure of this AfD before moving the page. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources to write a lengthy article about this, maybe even longer than Baseball (ball), which would give it undue weight. –Pomte 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are over half a dozen reliable sources already cited discussing this theory, and more could be found. *** Crotalus *** 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. That'll teach you not to use an {{underconstruction}}!!--12 Noon ^2¢ 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable enough. Maxa megalon 2000 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was leery that there would be enough material to support this, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources are there, the exact term is used, and the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, move it so the quote marks are not in the article name. Otto4711 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, notable subject. matt91486 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and next time read the instructions as I'm sure {{hangon}} and a discussion with DS2434 (talk · contribs) would have given you at least some time to add more than one source (and properly format them). I wonder if the wording on something has changed; there seems ot have been a recent spike in editors disputing speedies by escalation to AFD. Anyway, I think tagging an article for speedy that has an actual reference just 15 minutes after creation is nuts, even worrisome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Seeing as the speedy tagger (DS2434) has opined as "keep" and the above WP:SNOW, would a passing third party please close this discussion as one big misunderstood "keep". Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 13:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Result was Speedy Delete - G4. --Michael Greiner 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shmorhun[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alex Shmorhun

Articles for deletion/Alex Shmorhun (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable wrestler. Googling yields 272 hits, of which the top hit is the Wiki article. Article seems vaguely like a hoax; also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I didn't realize there was already an AfD out for this. I've tagged the page with CSD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera-tan[edit]

Opera-tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this article is notable, and it's not relevant enough to merge into Opera (web browser). Deletion is probably the most appropriate option, but I'm open to suggestions. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Opera (web browser), add the pic there if desired. JJL (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Back into Opera (web browser), adding {{fact}} where required. Fosnez (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really rather not...it doesn't seem very relevant, and I don't want to introduce unsourced statements into a featured article. I like JJL's suggestion of just redirecting. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OS-tans. The OS-tans (which started the whole moe anthropomorphism fad for technology) are only marginally notable; knock offs like Opera-tan and Moezilla are less so. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OS-tans. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search gave 3000 hits but didn't yield WP:RS. Hits for the character is usually confined in forums and blogs and most of the hits I got seems to direct to a Chinese Opera. Cute design, but Lenticel's cuteness guideline isn't WP:NOTE--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against the creation of an actual encyclopedic article if one can be written. — Scientizzle 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Without Zen Masters[edit]

Zen Without Zen Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The comment at the bottom of the article was inserted in response to a PROD, and I took it as a contestation of the PROD. However, this only convinces me that the book is a worthwhile reference to be used in articles about its topic, but that does not confer the book itself enough notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; token article--barely a stub. JJL (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, I don't even understand this "article". Tavix (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability to meet WP:BK criteria. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tavix and general states of confusion. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know about you over there in the US, but over here in Germany (maybe all Europe), that is quite a famous book. The article requires much cleanup, but notability isn't a problem from my POV. Can not give sources, though. --.Tom. (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, sadly, it would fail WP:V. If you can find some sources and write a better version of the article, I don't think anyone should have a problem with it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adopted (Internet series)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr^\ talk / 08:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted (Internet series)[edit]

Adopted (Internet series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a nonnotable internet series, it is almost impossible to verify VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to verify. Malinaccier (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable Youtube video. Not even a series yet, given that there's only one of them - with a whopping 16 views. No way there's any third-party coverage at that rate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per CSD A7; Web content with no indication of significance TheBilly (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I totally agree, it's a completely valid A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia E70[edit]

Nokia E70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial, reliable third-party references exist to create a sustainable Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search [32] turned up 8.59 Million hits. I think that would be enough to find reliable references from. Tavix (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Try checking through those hits. The vast majority are for accessories, parts, and sales. A product is not notable just because it is for sale. See also WP:GHITS.-- Mikeblas (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to Mikeblas' comments above, you also have the requisite CNet/GSMArena/etc launch reviews which every cellphone from the Nokia 6010 to the iPhone get, and are largely opinion-based with reference to manufacturer spec sheets (I've not seen such things constitute a reliable source). While it is a nice little handset, fails WP:N. One comment I'll make here, while searching for the appropriate place to bring this up for discussion, is that in light of the many AfDs for mobile phones we've seen, it's a little frustrating that there's no guideline for electronic gadgets like there is music, and such... Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews are prima facie evidence that the phone is notable - the world has noticed it, see. There might be some scope for merging such articles into families of related models but the Nokia Eseries article indicates that the phones in this family are too heterogeneous in important respects such as the form-factor - the most notable thing about the E70 seems to be its foldout keyboard ears. For some light relief, I recommend this scurrilous comparison with the iPhone. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While "the world having noticed it" might meet your definition of notable, it doesn't not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability for commercial products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful information, not findable by search of even the manufacturers site. This move to delete seems to be more of a religious movement than a constructive attempt to add to the usefulness of Wikipedia. ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Do you think that God told me to file this AfD? That's both absurd and inappropriate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well written, not stubby, different from many other models, and while notability is subjective, I'd say this is above the line for electronic devices. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that there's sufficient third-party references to show notability. The article isn't perfect and does need work, but that shouldn't be a reason not to keep it. Wibbble (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You want to say the E70 isn't notable? What? Sure, the article might be wrote like an advert, but this is no cause for deletion. For god's sake, keep it. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Without a concrete reason why you think this product is notable, your response is no better than WP:ILIKEIT. What are the reasons the phone is notable, and why aren't they in the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The E70 is one of the most important mobile phones in the market right now - and there are tons of articles of non-significant Nokia phones in Wikipedia. If different revisions of Nokia 3xxx are "notable", E70 is much more so. Mstuomel (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. GreyCat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been marked for deletion? Riahc3 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)riahc3Riahc3 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was gevalt. DS (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Samole[edit]

No references given to support claims of notability; 2 Google results for "Daniel Samole" and none for "Rabbi Samole". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax, I think. Something made up in school one afternoon. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Mikeblas. Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is most likely a hoax. Tavix (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: clearly a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but if it isn't a hoax, I'm sure he's a cool guy. Pretty Fly for a Rabbi, you might say. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been very substantially improved since being brought to AfD. It now has what appear to be seven WP:V, WP:RS cites as opposed to none at the beginning of the AfD. The argument of the character predating the Darkplace TV show by several years, including winning awards during this period, indicates notability independent of that TV show and contraindicates a merge to that article. Pigman☿ 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Marenghi[edit]

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I quickly added a few refs, whether they are enough is a matter for debate. RMHED (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Garth Marenghi's Darkplace Doc Strange (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article has real world notability and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep the newspaper links prove notability. Merging it with Matthew Holness would be wrong as the character was co-created by Ayoade, and merging it with Darkplace misses the fact that the character provably pre-dates Darkplace by several years. So since it's got nowhere to go, I think keep it as is for now.The Zig (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak merge - whilst the character is notable, the nominator is correct that there is very little info here. However, not entirely sure where the best place to merge to is, as per The Zig above. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, award-winning comedy character with plenty of coverage.--Nydas^(Talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would suggest a merge except the information is already well-covered, and this is superfluous. No claims of real-world significance are made and hence this does not merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant and not notable. The Darkplace article contains all the info we need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.67.198 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the act precedes Darkplace and has won a major comedy award. If this were an anime character, there'd be no question about its notability.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article had already been speedied many times for Being blatant advertising (G11) and an inherently non-notable company (A7). I've speedied it again as recreation of deleted content (G4), as it should be taken to deletion review before re-creation.. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FasChek Supermarkets[edit]

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

Non-notable supermarket with only a handful of stores. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY. Couldn't find any acceptable references when doing a Google search. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect with/to Yngwie Malmsteen. Merge completed prior to closing by Pmedema. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YJM308 Yngwie Malmsteen Overdrive[edit]

YJM308 Yngwie Malmsteen Overdrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unencyclopedic fan written advert for a non-notable celebrity endorsed product. Unless every item in the Martha Stewart line is getting a page, this doesn't need one either. All the 'sources so far are pretty much commcercial vendors or blogs. There's no asserted notability outside if Malsteen's name on it. ThuranX (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I won't say keep or delete because I've contributed to the article. I feel this is a notable article because it is a series based on notable people who have helped in their creation and more to come based on the citations in the article. Discuss as you feel but all of the article is cited and referenced as per WP:V.. as to WP:N I leave up to you.--Pmedema (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge(see comment below) - the artist is notable but as ThuranX says, notability is not passed on like a Midas Touch to every product endorsed by notable people. Minus the endorsement, the article is a brief and confusing description of an otherwise unremarkable object. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yngwie. See the equipment section of the Eddie Van Halen article for an excellent model on how to deal with a musician recreating their personal equipment with manufacturers. Miami33139 (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Not a notable product on its own. Lankiveil (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Yngwie Malmsteen. Although this doesn't strictly fit into his "Equipment" section (since it appears to be an Yngwie-endorsed recreation of the original DOD250 pedal which he uses himself), it could certainly be discussed there. --Stormie (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, and previous precedent that somewhat notable instruments should be merged into articles of their musician user, to Yngwie Malmsteen. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a contributer to this article I see no problem with Merge.--Pmedema (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As there seems to be a consensus for a merge, would someone with a good background knowledge of the issue like to go ahead and do it? I suspect the only thing holding up the closure of this AfD is that the closing admin would have to also do the merge work which is something of a disincentive. Euryalus (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Close - In an effort of boldness I have merged the core information into Yngwie Malmsteen#Equipment and redirected. --Pmedema (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the merge looks great and is clearly in keeping with the consensus in the AfD. I have reverted the redirect for now because it overwrites the AfD notice and may cause confusion among anyone who still wishes to add something to this debate (per the Guide to deletion). Other than this minor point, thanks for merging this and hopefully this speeds the close of the debate. Euryalus (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect with/to Die Glocke. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell[edit]

The only source explicitly given as reference is on americanantigravity.com, a site which fails our criteria for reliable sources, compare Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Over-Unity" and "Anti-Gravity". OK, we have articles on strange things and beliefs, provided they are notable enough. But a Google search for witkowski sporrenberg bell, which should match any occurrence of this narrative only returns 27 results, some of them false positives.
The mentioning in two minor works of fiction may add some relevance, but if that would be considered the main reason to keep, the article would have to be turned upside down.
--Pjacobi (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I happened to read the nonfiction book The Hunt for Zero Point by Cook -- who is an aerospace editor for Janes, no less -- and The Bell does form a very important part of his work. Exactly what the Nazis were doing may be in dispute, but it was apparently important enough for them to round up and kill every scientist who worked on the project. At any rate, I added -- badly, I do apologize -- a salon.com reference to the Bell in its negative review of Cook's book. I don't believe that Cook, for one, referred to the project by witkowski sporrenberg bell and that may well explain why the nominator's Ghits were so low. I suspect there are slightly different names being used for this thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Die Glocke. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- I've heard of that "bell" on a History Channel program. For what that's worth. Wowest (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By their very nature paranormal phenomena and conspiracy theories don't exist, so they only reason they can be notable is if the speculation or theory itself is notable. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case here - all of the references are unreliable sources about the alleged German experiments (the cited sources are a book review which is strongly critical of Nick Cook's claims, a blog post and an unreliable website - none these come close to being reliable sources) and there's nothing about the extent to which this particular conspiracy theory has obtained notoriety. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two books about it, references in fiction, and enough cultural diffusion that people "have heard about it." Miami33139 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the existing article Die Glocke which is more neutral. Unintentional content fork, housekeeping job. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral? The Die Glocke article describes as Cook as a science fiction writer, which is simply not true. And it calls the device entirely fictional, whereas this article at least describes it as a "supposed" device. IMO, the Die Glocke article is less neutral in these respects. There's also useful content in this article -- for example, the TV doc -- which we wouldn't want to lose. I'd still say a merge and redirect is more in order, with The Bell as the retained article title since this is an English encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected Cook's description and changed "fictional" in the Die Glocke lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Die Glocke. The two articles are about the same topic. Issues beyond that are editorial issues, not AfD issues. --Stormie (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drenco[edit]

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

Artist that fails WP:BAND. There is no strong assertion of notability, and no independent reliable sources are supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Amazing hit, but never made it on air", "has intentions of working as a solo artist" sorry, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - can't see why this wasn't speedied. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Doesn't explain notability. Speedy or not, fails WP:MUSIC TheBilly (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intention (video game)[edit]

Intention (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination - speedy tagged as hoax. Addhoc (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a bunch of useless old knob. Chance of EA publishing a multi-format First-person shooter in three months without sites like IGN knowing about it = nil. Do we really need to talk about this one for five days? :/ Someone another (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think it's rather obvious that this is a hoax. When I came across this page most of it was copied from Just Cause (video game), presumebly to make it look real, and the so-called cover image was a user-created one. --MrStalker ^talk 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per MrStalker Will ^(talk) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hooray we've detected another Wiki-hoax. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are we really gonna have to wait 5 days to get rid of this shit? It's just ridiculus. The creator of the article in question ain't gonna answer to this afd, that's for sure. And what do you mean hoax isn't enough for speedy deletion?!? (see [33]) It's pure vandalism for god's sake! CSD G3: "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation [...]" --MrStalker ^talk 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Boy[edit]

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

Delete Non notable subject. Mere association with a notable subject does not get one notability, which is really the only valid argument an individual can give. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete♥♦¢åŗđş♣♠ (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. Please cite a reason. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only assertion of personal notability is appearing on a reality show. --Stormie (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Boy. — Scientizzle 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Rolla Records[edit]

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

Delete Secondary association with a notable element does not give a subject notability. Not notable. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable group/"label" with a couple of CDBaby releases. --Stormie (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Children's TV presenter arrested on suspicion of his fiancee's murder". Times. 2008-01-05. Retrieved 2008-01-05.

[1]