Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism) by FisherQueen. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ngmanis[edit]

Blatant Advertising or Self Promotion ... no claim of notability for inclusion in WP Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 does not exist under this name and seemingly never has. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Did you Last See Your Money?[edit]

It is an episode that doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:EPISODE Leonard^(Bloom) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ito's Third Studio Album[edit]

This page should be deleted because there is no proof of this album's existence Dontyoudare (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing reliable or even about the subject from a Google search. It also violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Tavix (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavE[edit]

Piece of freeware software with no assertion of notability, no sourcing beyond the subject's website, has been tagged as being written like an advertisement for eight months now with absolutely zero improvements. Stormie (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.......Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The only coverage is its website, and this review. Its still pretty exclusive to these websites. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete doesn't seem notable. No reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no sources and definitely reads like an advertisement. I don't think the every piece of software deserves an entry and the fact that no improvement has been made to the article in some time is an indication to me that this is not notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party sources and no sign that it's notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akanea[edit]

Badly written article about non-notable fictional video game country which has been well covered in the articles on the two games it has appeared in AdamantBMage (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, I would support a redirect to Fire Emblem#Setting. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There's nothing here that is already covered in the Fire Emblem article. MuZemike (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not warrant a separate article and is covered in Fire Emblem. Artene50 (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article adds nothing that isn't covered better in Fire Emblem --Deadly∀ssassin 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search topic -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austin City Limits performers[edit]

Indiscriminate, unsourced, and loooooooooong list of everyone who's ever performed on Austin City Limits. Not a source in sight, no real notability in relation to the series (literally thousands of performers). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In each article, it already probably covers these appearances. May I ask, did you try to prod this? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure whether you asked this question because you believed TenPoundHammer should have or shouldn't have prod-ed. However my view is that prod-ing any article that's had a dozen or more editors, as this one has, is an abuse of that process. Prod is for uncontroversial deletes: the deletion of articles which multiple people have worked on should always be considered controversial. AndyJones (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A potentially useful list, being long or potentially so is not a valid reason for deletion. The series is notable, the artists are notable and their appearances on the show are notable. As for unsourced, the external link [1] at the end of the page, to the ACL site itsself, sources the article almost fully and reliably. Russeasby (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep while the list strikes me as a list for it's own sake, I have to assume that it's useful for someone and as Russeasby says the fact that it is a long list isn't a reason for deletion. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All we have to do is to make a table.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The arguments that this fails WP:MUSIC are compelling, and the references given to refute that are much less so. Kevin (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themis music[edit]

Nominating as non-notable self-promotion. References are either band-related websites or directory sites, with the possible exception of the CBC Radio 3 site (although the band admits this site seems to have an open-door policy towards bands, meaning inclusion isn't an indication of notability). While not a primary indicator in and of itself, there are only about 25 Google hits when searching for 'Themis "Wicca rock'" and 'Themis "Wiccan rock'". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fact that it has not ...been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. As the nom, it has been mentioned on CBC but I there is that policy.... TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. At least three sources E-Music Download Review: Themis Music, CBC Radio3 Review and WebRadio Canada Review verify the article fully and reliably. Mobrien9279 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The references provided by Mobrien show verifiability but not notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable within substantial portion of the population. The article refers to a very narrow genre of religious music that has few practitioners. Many people who are Wicca's probably don't want to say that. The rules of Wikipedia say that "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" More to the point, the article is notable if it were true. It appears verified true. The fact that in a small country like Canada (Population of New York City) you have the emergence of a new music Genre involving an ecology-based religion is of itself notable. There are a lot of us Wicca around the world. Here in Sweden there are more than a few. Some are outspoken like me. Stop this professional snobbery and keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.5.80 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 88.80.5.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think notability is established. I found this review (www.e-music.ca/focus1-themis.htm) to be quite useful. Basically it says that Themis has invented a new music classification. I am sure the competing music genres will be upset (there are soooo many) but if you look at the uniqueness its nothing to worry about, just something new but harmless. Themis should be kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.163.29.30 (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.29.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ * Ok. I have asked a number of other people to assit with discography and references. The problem is that I and most people are WIki illiterate and just learning. PLease give me enough time to make the changes needed. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. -Brian Mobrien9279 (talk) Mobrien9279 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is worth noting that there may be a link between mobrien.com and webradio.ca. If Mobrien9279 is linked to mobrien.com (and/or to Themis) there could be a potential conflict of interest. - DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't seem to establish their notability in accordance with policy and guidelines. Lacking in reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Not sure the review mentioned above is from a reliable 3rd party source either. This article should be deleted and appropriate articles created about the genre Wicca Rock and the band Themis (band) when they both become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability doesn't appear to be established, there is a lack of reliable 3rd party sources, and doesn't do well on the google test [2]. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No particular opinion on notability as yet, but it has to be said the quality of the article is terrible, even down to the title - if the band is called Themis (as is the case.....I think) then why is the article entitled "Themis music"...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess on that is because articles entitled Themis already exist about other subjects and AGF the creator is new. Plus perhaps some confusion between the band and the "genre" they created. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly non-notable per WP:MUSIC; sources cited above are nowhere near good enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yes. Themis is a very common name. Mars exploration,+ satelites, + the Themis bands, and mother justice herself all share the name. Themis music which is what the article is about is the name of the Studio and the Band Camp and the Band is called "Themis". Somebody referred to 'the Google test' ('doesn't do well on the google test') (?) Google "Themis" and "Themis music" and you will see incredibly different results. The point is that I think Brian used the name for the article correctly as it describes Themis music the Band Camp, the studio and the concept of wicca music. I disagree with the statement "quality of the article is terrible" and wonder why there is so much derisive commentary in this thread without any form of constructive help or assistance. I guess you must keep outsiders out.

Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment okay in an attempt to help may I suggest that the article be rewritten to better reflect what it is about. Perhaps, by sectioning it and discussing each aspect in a different section. Also perhaps reviewing the help pages on article creation and particularly on "your first article" could help solve some of the "content" problems. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the article is kept then the most important improvement that could be made would be to put in some more substantial content about what the band has actually done/achieved to date and trim the huge amounts of unencyclopedic rambling about their beliefs/creed/lyrical content..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also seriously question the claim of the band to have invented a whole new genre of music. One band choosing to sing about a particular subject does not suddenly create a whole new genre of music. Plus, although my knowledge of wicca is minimal to say the least, haven't bands like Inkubus Sukkubus been making rock music with wiccan themes (i.e. "wiccan rock") for many years.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep no particular opinion on notability either. it seems fine. I found the article interesting. 66.163.18.194 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Interesting isn't a policy or guideline and therefore not really a valid reason to keep. If it were my "vote" would have been different.

keep some of the links are just listings but four or more articles seem to be from third party sources. It's a close call but I say notable and 'keep'

192.139.80.22 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Fred Harris — 192.139.80.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

question can you let me know which 4 articles you think are from reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject of the article in a non-trival way are. I will happily look again at them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answer reference links 1, 2, 3, and 8 look good to me. the others are valid to support the various elements but after searching on yahoo I found better notability than Themis music uses. above rewrite suggestion might be a good approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.80.22 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replyUnfortunately, I can't access 1, 2, or 8. I've already commented above that the review may not constitute a reliable 3rd party source in accordance with the projects guidelines and policies. Please understand that proving the existence (or even popularity) of the band isn't the same as notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply oh dear. well maybe the connection will open up later. the article at Web Radio has a contact (http://webradio1.net/melanie/) listed and its an interview; the CBC has a section where the band was on the air. The CBC links are slow (java?). The Wicca theme is talked about in one way or another every linked article even the 3rd prty schedule show listings. But wait. The fuss about wiccan rock and Themis is that they are starting a new genre. That's the notable thing, right? I have seen this fuss with a new wine! (gave myself away :) I must get on with my day. name is Joe BTW. and thanks. 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I would dispute that one band choosing to sing about a particular subject suddenly causes a "new genre of music" to be invented -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep I think the edits made already fix the article sufficiently. It should survive. It is notable. 66.163.18.204 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.18.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep the recent edits are good. i will look again tomorrow and see what edits might help. sugestions? Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn self-promo. Libs (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Note criteria 7, which states "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style". Creating a new "genre" of music is not notable in itself, and needs verifiable reliable sources that states that this genre is notable.
- Comment: A summary of the current references follows:
  - Webradio.ca - no indication that this is a reliable source
  - E-music.ca - a review of a local show
  - myspace.com - Themis' official myspace, which I don't believe is a RS for the sourced statement
  - Themismusic.com - official website
  - livewithculture.ca - a gig listing for a local show at the Rivoli
- As such, I feel that it doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:MUSIC, which is - "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." A gig listing is trivial, and two online reviews don't meet the criteria of multiple non-trivial published works (especially when we consider the reliablily of the sources). - DigitalC (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear self-promotion, and doesn't pass any part of WP:MUSIC with multiple reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this delete or a keep. This article seems like it have enough source, but the article is not too clear.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Cass[edit]

A few claims here and there, a few notable awards and a primary source, and some news reviews mentioned. However, it reads as a big PR piece and I can't find any secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to the talk page it was written by her publicist. No secondary sources available (fails WP:V). BradV 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSIC does say "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart", and the article mentions one of her songs being on the National Folk Chart. Nonetheless, article is very poorly written and needs cleanup. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator himself says, "A few notable awards" DGG (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article desperately needs rewriting for a more neutral encyclopedic tone as well as some reliable 3rd party sources in the reference section. Also need to address the possible copyvio thing (confirming the permission from the talkpage I suppose). She does have 63 GNews hits though and some sourcing for the awards when "Jen Cass" USA songwriting award is searched. Interesting to me was this link [3] simply because it includes another person up for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of work, but the awards indicate notability, and the following coverage was easily found on Google: [4], [5], [6].--Michig (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus as it stands is in favour of retaining this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jer's Vision[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been a year and a half since the last AFD, and there still isn't significant coverage by secondary sources to say more than "it exists." Previous concerns for lack of sourcing, probable lack of neutrality, etc., are still outsanding. Fails WP:ORG. Ray^Talk 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just added a source, it appears that further sources are likely to be available. Nobody doubts this is a registered charity, NOTIMELIMIT applies. Ash (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only a guideline. WP:NOT#HOST, WP:SOAP, WP:MYSPACE, WP:PLOT, WP:NFT (no proof they are a charity. I dispute it) and WP:ORG all apply. It fails all of them. delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since essays work for you, WP:GARAGE also applies. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to be assuming that this charity is a hobby-horse of mine. In fact I had not heard of them until the article was raised for deletion and I have never even visited Canada. As you challenged the organization's charity status, you may like to know the information is easy to check based on official tax records at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca (the Revenue Agency). Here's the info if you can't be bothered to look it up:

JER'S VISION

BN/Registration Number: 863207981RR0001

Charity Status: Registered

Effective Date of Status: 2005-02-01

Designation Description: Public Foundation

Charity Type: Education

Category: Support of Schools and Education

Address: JEREMY DIAS 54 SOMERSET ST W., SUITE 1

City: OTTAWA

Province/Territory/Other: ONTARIO

Country: CA

Postal Code/Zip Code: K2P0H5

- - - Even if they have charity status, that doesn't make them notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added the source to show they were a charity as you stated you disputed it. As for notability, Mayor Harvey Rosen stated that this charity was "Canada's first (and only) national organization to support and encourage the work of youth to address discrimination in their schools and communities" (see citation in article), this is sufficient to meet ORG. Ash (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you get 37 results for "Jer's vision". Those results can't be for anything other than the organization. If it is notable enough for various news sources to mention, then that its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a couple more sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, doesn't have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability. Verbal chat

It certainly does have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability; they're even right in the article and everything! Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sufficiently sourced to reliable media organizations. Okay, maybe Lifesitenews is a bit iffy (or a lot iffy), but the Toronto Star and Xtra! certainly clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOW, listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts)[edit]

does not assert notability for inclusion in WP; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable and therefore stub worthy. There was a citation to the National Register listing (nps.gov). Swampyank (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Registered Historic Places are notable by definition. This policy has been upheld many times. (Don't you people have anything constructive to do?)--Appraiser (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing on the NRHP means that the historic and/or architectural significance of the structure has been independently verified. Which means it also meets any notability requirements we might have. It also means there's a 4+ page document on this property published when the site was listed, which cites sources. Needs expansion but expansion is essentially guaranteed to be possible. --Rividian (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps Speedy Keep. Absolutely notable per NRHP. JRP (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion standards for the NRHP are much higher than Wikipedia standards. If it's notable per the National Historic Preservation Act, it's notable here. And why was a NRHP site article nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation? --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there may be only one reference, but I think the article should be given time to improve. The subject appears to be notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Information Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a garbage article and should be deleted, the organization is not notable and the whole last paragraph is completely pointless - who cares about a 16-year old boardroom skirmish? Giano (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst I don't think it's the most important article we have, it's certainly notable per the organisation notability guidelines.. Per the guideline - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. " - PIR has been discussed in many secondary sources, including the New York Times making it clearly notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and per nominator. Ripberger (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navel gazing. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nuke it from high-orbit. It's the only way to be sure - Alison ^❤ 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - navel gazing is not a reason for deletion, but maybe it should be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wrong side of borderline notability according to current policies, in my book - and that brings with it attendant 'weight' issues... a browse through the history also indicates to me that we've clearly had major problems working on this article in a balanced way. Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coatrack article that uses reliable sources in which one or more aspects of the organisation are secondarily or trivially mentioned to give the illusion of notability. Let's review the online references:

Reference #1 - Guidestar - a registration-required site that is being used to support factual information in the article, including the evidence that PIR is behind Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch, as well as PIR's revenue. If this information is not available except in a website that requires registration, that demonstrates the limited notability of the organisation.

Added note - When accessing this link using IE, it turns up as a registration-required site; however, using Firefox, I was able to read the site and the page for PIR. It turns out that PIR claims it earns less than $25,000 per year and thus does not file tax returns (see the "Basic information" section). GuideStar also encourages non-profits to edit/update their entries, and claims no responsibility for the content of the site. Therefore, it is not a reliable enough source to stand as the primary source for information. Risker (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Guidestar site is well-repected among people researching nonprofit groups. Its purpose is that it hosts the 501c3 tax forms of these organizations, so everyone doesn't have to send away to the government to get a copy of them. I imagine even if it allows organizations to upload corrections it would flag them as such. Nobody is suggesting the existence of such a tax form makes an organization notable, but this is an official, primary source used only for financial and organziational facts. It's the same as citing EDGAR or Dunn and Bradstreet. The "no legal responsibility" is a standard disclaimer used in all kinds of publications. I'd also like to point out that notability is not temporary. Wonder what the revenue of PIR was in the early 1990s. Or of its forerunner, Micro Associates, during the Iran-Contra era. Notice there were no complaints about Ref #2 - a 1988 The Nation article about Micro Associates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref.#3 - New York Times - a 1987 article that focuses primarily on the National Intelligence Book Center, which apparently no longer exists and whose notability is not clear. There are no dots connecting it to PIR, which did not exist in 1987.

Comment. The article is about both the National Intelligence Book Center ( which I don't think is connected to PIR, but wish we had an article about it ) and Micro Associates ( the forerunner of PIR ). It is the second half of the NYT article we are interested in here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref.#4 - Counterpunch Minor web news service that specialises in "muckraking". Only NameBase is mentioned in the article, PIR is not mentioned at all.
Ref.#6 - Salon.com The article is primarily about Google, and uses Daniel Brandt as one of several commentators on problems with Google. It mentions googlewatch.com and NameBase, but not PIR.
Ref.#7 - New York Times. This article is about John Seigenthaler's Wikipedia article. Daniel Brandt's role is portrayed secondarily, PIR is not mentioned, only Wikipedia Watch.
Ref.#8 - Society of Professional Journalists/AP Not even a direct link to the AP source, to start with. No information indicating if any other news sites/newspapers/journals even picked up the AP story, or if it was only published in this one source. Neither PIR nor any of the subsidiary websites are mentioned.
Ref. #9 - Link to NameBase webpage Shows names of directors and advisors and identifies PIR as a 501(c)3 organisation. Does not provide any information about PIR otherwise, does not list subwebsites, does not provide financial information.
Ref. #11 - Public Eye.org An opinion piece, revised twice over the years, mentions Dan Brandt and NameBase in passing while focusing on "the LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby networks".

This is Trivial Pursuit writ large. I cannot think of another 501(c)3 organisation with an income of only $25,000/year that is worthy of a Wikipedia article, and this one isn't either. Risker (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how an organization making less than $25,000 a year could possibly be notable. Captain panda 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to look a little like another attempt to remove all mention of the guy running it. The sources are present. Whether the notability is 16 years ago does not make any difference to an encyclopedia. And money != influence or notability. DGG (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, not one of the non-registration reference sources listed above actually mentions Public Information Research by name. None of them link Google Watch or Wikipedia Watch to PIR. Even the link to PIR and Namebase is shaky; I know several websites that have pages devoted to not-directly-related non-profits. My local SPCA brings in about 30 times this much money a year, and it certainly isn't notable. Risker (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has very little notability. Sticky Parkin 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say keep and analyze the sources for notability, but I see that Risker already did. We also might want to consider deleting these two related articles, as they suffer the problems:

Google Watch (very little sources, only the Salon article actually centers on the website, and even that one is very centered on its creator Brandt and not the website itself)
Wikipedia Watch (all notable sources seem to make only passing mentions. like NYT and The Register, Miami Herald seems to be centered on something else)

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per all above, particularly Risker's well-made argument. ~ priyanath talk 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no definitive assertions of notability, not worth the pain. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classic coatrack Bishonen | talk 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete basically per Risker - no point in repeating his research. Viridae ^Talk 07:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous rationales. Keeping said article almost appears to be a punishment. Minkythecat (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable non-trivial independent sources. The main reason for keeping this appears to be individuals' personal feelings about Brandt. Understandable, but not a reason for having an article. The previous AfD showed clear consensus for not having an article on this subject, merge and delete strongly overwhelmed keep. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The last few sentences stink of a personal grudge and need to be removed, if nothing else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per cogent arguments from Lar, Privatemusings, Risker and others. (The fact that Viridae and Guy have agreed on something gives me hope for the future of Wikipedia.) FCYTravis (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and because the article appears to push a pov. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, as demonstrated above. Fails WP:N abd WP:ORG. Hut 8.5 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails our guidelines for inclusion (WP:CORP/WP:WEB). NameBase is at first glance more notable a topic (particularly based on Risker's arguments above), and any worthwhile information pertaining directly to NameBase could be moved there. Neıl ☄ 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite appearing at first glance to be well referenced, after reviewing the linked citations and the comments on this AfD I find they are trivial and that the notability of the subject is dubious. Chillum 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the various discussions and reviews here, having looked more closely at the sourcing. rootology (T) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-profit with a revenue stream of less than $25,000 is pretty dern small. The fact that the center of that center is a noted Wikipedia hater is as irrelevant to the decision on this "center" as it is to whether or not the person qualifies for a biography. Just a company. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker. Rockpocket 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ginao and Risker --Duk 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, guys, but there are sources out there in addition to what is in the article. Risker's analysis omits #5, the relevant page is online. Check google scholar and google books, using "Public Information Research" brandt . Take a look at [7] , [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Maybe merge with namebase. Also per Ryan and DGG. John Z (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JohnZ, for that additional research. When I was posting yesterday, I was on a restricted computer so couldn't access Google Scholar or Google Book. Let's review these new potential sources.

Ref. #5 United States History: A Multicultural, Interdisciplinary Guide to Information Services. A. Perrault et al. Libraries Unlimited, 2003. One-paragraph entry focused on NameBase in a 661-page reference work containing "1,250 major entries as well as hundreds of co-entries and minor entries." (preface, p.xviii)
Toxic Burn: The Grassroots Struggle Against the WTI Incinerator, Thomas Shevory. University of Minnesota Press, 2007. Two paragraphs in a 288-page book, focused on NameBase. The reference source for the material is the Counterpunch article above at Ref.#4.
Google Power: Unleash the Full Potential of Google, Chris Sherman. McGraw Hill Professional, 2005. One-page entry in an appendix, describing Google Watch's nomination of Google for Privacy International's "U.S. Big Brother Awards", and pointing to another article that refuted the claims made by Google Watch.
(Editorial - Computerized and networked government information column) Developments in U.S. Federal E-Government Efforts, Juri Stratford. Journal of Government Information, Volume 30, Issues 5-6, 2004, Pages 542-547. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access.

"In March 2002, Daniel Brandt, president of Public Information Research, discovered that the CIA Web site was using “cookies” in violation on federal policy" is the gscholar preview on this one.John Z (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and the Universal Digital Library, an apparently unpublished research paper written by a person associated with Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, on the topic of how Google Books may affect the Universal Digital Library project. Daniel Brandt, Google Watch, and PIR are referred to in one sentence of the 18-page paper. Quote from the paper: "In December 2004, Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research (PIR) and www.google-watch.org wrote a letter to Maurice Freedman of the American Library Association (ALA) urging ALA to pressure the libraries participating in Google Print to require Google to respect the anonymity of users of the digitized library books (Brandt 2004)." (Reference source: Brandt, Daniel (December 15, 2004). Letter to Maurice Freedman, American Library Association. Public Interest Registry (PIR). Available: http://www.google-watch.org/appeal.html ). Several other references to Google-Watch in the article.
Google and privacy, Paul S. Piper. Internet reference services quarterly (ISSN 1087-5301), 2005, vol. 10, no 3-4 (232 p.). [Article: 9 pages (5 ref.)], pp. 195-203. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access. Note: French website, although the article was written by an author affiliated with College of Arts and Sciences, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.
Secrecy and Accountability in U.S. Intelligence, a paper prepared for a seminar on intelligence reform sponsored by the Center for International Policy in 1996. Used as a footnote for this sentence: "But in these cases and others, the public attitudes that eventually precipitated declassification became so deeply rooted that they have not been discernably affected by the release of the old documents. In this way, current classification policy promotes public stupidity. (42)." The footnote, one of 53, reads: "Conspiracy-mongering as a strategy for promoting declassification may have already reached its peak, as the threshold for outrageousness becomes unachievably high and public discourse becomes increasingly incoherent. Today, "No one is willing to read 20 books on the CIA when they can watch 20 episodes of 'The X Files,' and have more fun doing it," writes Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research . The result is a problem that Mr. Brandt terms 'Why Johnny Can't Dissent.' "
Über den Suchgiganten Google oder die Antwort auf die Frage: Wird Google auch zukünftig den Suchmaschinenmarkt beherrschen?, Susanne Richter. Apparently an online seminar sponsored by Freie Universität Berlin (Kommunikationswissenschaften), ISBN: 978-3-638-36184-2. The website and the article are in German, and the link is pay-for-access, so unable to review. A loose translation of the title is "About the search engine giant Google or the answer to the question: Will Google will continue to dominate the search engine market?"

Here's a better (free) link for this one. PIR is referred to only as one of 31 organizations urging Google to suspend Gmail in an open letter (in English). Hadn't had a chance to look at it yesterday.John Z (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am still not seeing significant coverage of PIR, although one or two of these references might be useful for the articles on the specific websites. Even the links provided to pay-for-access sites are unlikely to yield much more than a few footnotes or perhaps a paragraph within a much larger work, and they look to be mostly Google-focused. Risker (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems sufficient to me, in addition to what's in the article already, at least to support a merge and redirect. Toxic Burn has the information, not in the article or in Counterpunch, that PIR dates to the early 70's under the name Micro Associates, and is a bit more than just on NameBase. My interest in these matters is less than zero, but I think one should beware of applying standards too strictly to a case like this (navel taboo?), of deletion based on difficulty of writing a neutral article (how can people learn to write neutrally other than by working on difficult cases?) and of sorites - type reasoning.. So it seems more logical to keep this article, as the umbrella organization, and merge (some of) the various projects, Wikipedia Watch, Google Watch, NameBase, Navel Watch etc into it. Clearly this would result in fewer articles, and arguably this would result in less NGPOV than just deleting this article.John Z (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Risker's excellent reasoning. Naerii 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Great job Risker. Tex (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker and Giano. While related entities might be somewhat notable, PIR fails WP:CORP as far as I can see. I have a suspicion that NGPOV (navel-gazing point of view) is the major reason we keep this around. We don't like WR, so we keep the article so we can have someplace to talk about Brandt & Co. In the greater world, it's just not that important. Kylu (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's time for Wikipedia to grow up and remove articles on people that nobody would care about apart from their being related to Wikipedia. (And to answer the "what about Jimmy Wales" question, when people start paying to see D.B. speak on the lecture circuit, then we can have an article about him.) --B (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Image:Public Information Resarch.GIF - Nonfree content logo, to be deleted if the article is. Kylu (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per Risker. Two reservations: (i) Counterpunch is more significant than Risker suggests (it's actually pretty good) -- but its article doesn't mention this company; (ii) I'm grateful that the WP article told me of "L Fletcher Prouty", a name I'd have assumed was thought up by or for Groucho Marx. (Yes, so much of the US seems to have been thought up by or for Groucho. But I digress.) John Z's assiduously collected little mentions go to show that PIR has above-zero significance, but to me they don't say much more. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many references do you need to prove notability?--Poetlister 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just enough to support what is being said, the problem is that the references are not really doing that, see all the other comments above. Chillum 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the number of references, but what type of references and what they're referencing. Can you prove that PIR meets the requirements at WP:CORP? If so, share and (potentially) fix the article. Kylu (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's non-notable, and "Daniel Brandt wants it deleted" is not sufficient to keep it, although it is tempting. Horologium (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Risker and the non-notability thing. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Risker's said it best. Wizardman 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and merge NameBase into it. Organization has importance outside WP. I don't care what certain Wikipedians think of it, it ( with NameBase ) has been around for a long time; I've seen it featured in a Whole Earth catalog circa 1990. Last paragraph is particularly important, shows relationship between PIR and various other investigative or specialized media outlets. Notable part of the alternative media, and has plenty of references. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's another source; a magazine called Online apparently did an entire article about PIR and NameBase in September 1996, entitled NameBase tracks lesser-known political players. Here's abstracts from HighBeam [14] and EBSCO.[15] From the above debate, it sounded like people wanted an article that focused entirely on PIR. Well, here it is. Now can we stop the silliness? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources provided, including the article cited by Squidfryerchef above, indicate sufficient coverage of this organization in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 UseModWiki. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CvWiki[edit]

Non-notable obsolete software; no coverage in reliable sources is evident. Its historical significance (if any) as a precursor of UseModWiki, which may or may not be notable itself, is already noted in that article. Sandstein 09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge bases on the nom's information.DGG (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UseModWiki, this article in and of itself does not assert notability. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombina and The Skeletones[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Ectoplasmic is not a major label. Myspace is not a reliable source, and neither is the band's own page. Search results consist mainly of lyrics sites, also not reliable sources. Internal links in the article mostly circle back to the article, especially for Zombina herself. DarkAudit (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artist and albums. Artist fails WP:MUSIC in every way, and so do the albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, notability not established per WP:MUSIC or WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC and has no 3rd party sources. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band meets the "heard of them before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. Seem to be a reasonable number of sources available per Google News. [16] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That is not a valid guideline. WP:MUSIC is. Having your hometown paper send a guy 'round to see a hometown show is not a reasonable show of notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Neither is "so-and-so appeared" in a review of a wider event. Many of these listings you present are club listings, not news. DarkAudit (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band is internationally recognised, as evidenced by many press articles on their official site (along with being featured on many movie soundtracks and having worldwide radio airplay). Having checked the music guidelines several of the criteria are easily met by this band. To the person who said that the band's official site is not a valid source of information - can you please explain what does constitute a valid source of information if the OFFICAL SITE OF THE BAND is not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.193.128 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Per the reliable sources guideline, sources must be reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. A band's own site is not independent. DarkAudit (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News results linked above include reviews in the Liverpool Daily Post, a major regional newspaper not "your hometown paper send[ing] a guy 'round to see a hometown show", and NME, a major source for this type of subject matter. There are also articles from Finland, Greece, Japan and the United States - even less "hometown". Maybe the individual albums aren't notable, but they can easily be merged into the band's article without being deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Liverpool paper reviewing a show at a Liverpool club is still local, no matter the size of the paper. These are your average club dates that any large city will have, The NME links appear to be club listings, not features about the band except in one possible case. A single feature (and I can't tell how much of a feature it is without putting up money to find out) is not "substantial". Notability is not inherited from the people doing the coverage. Trivial coverage is still trivial coverage no matter whose byline it's under. DarkAudit (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Waggers (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila stuntman[edit]

Unreferenced and nonnotable. Marked for deletion by WP:MIX for about a year and a half now, with no action taken. Sneftel (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, not sourced, abandoned by its author Rklawton (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't appear to have any support or much going for it. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvanian (cocktail)[edit]

An article on a non-notable cocktail recipe. Normally I'd just PROD and say WP:NFT and WP:NOTGUIDE, but since there appears to be some history and at least one citation that is actually about the topic, I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK --T-rex 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per a redlink? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could turn that into a blue link if I wanted to, but I think it gets my argument across equally well without doing so --T-rex 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs better writing, but the subject appears to have some marginal notability. It would also fit in well with the WikiProject on Mixed Drinks. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep as it has some relevant references and although it sounds like a foul drink (egg white and a twist of lemon??!!) it has some notability. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete since out of curiosity I have just looked through the source links, and found that none of the pages at the other end seem to mention this drink, except the last which tells me, I don't know how reliably, that contrary to the article (but more appealingly) this cocktail is made from 2 oz light rum, 1/2 oz pineapple juice and 1 dash grenadine. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Other than the Internet Cocktail Database, sources in the article don't include the term on the linked pages. I tried Google and did not find it listed anywhere else. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Yerushalmi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No sources for notability, and no sources for many biographical details. Most of the sources that cited are unacceptable as they are free-access sites - groups.yahoo.com, topica.com, www.nowpublic.com. stage.co.il is the Israeli MySpace - anyone can open an "artist page" there. The only reliable sources here are from Haaretz and SikurMemukad.co.il. Haaretz by itself is a respectable newspaper, but not everyone who is mentioned once in a respectable newspaper should have an article. I haven't seen the SikurMemukad.co.il website before; it doesn't seem to be unreliable, but the article itself admits that all that this site had about this man is one interview. It is also worth mentioning that this article was deleted and salted in the Hebrew Wikipedia after multiple attempts at re-creation (Vote for deletion; Salted title - שמואל ירושלמי). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many self-published writers or poets on the internet, some of whom are more notable, like Shaul Reznik. It should be noted that we Wikipedians are not robots and should not assess notability simply based on the existence of an article or two from X newspaper about a person - we should look at the overall coverage he has received, and in this case, it's certainly lacking. Also, none of the subject's works seem to be phenomenal and there doesn't seem to be any major independent coverage of his works. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vancarlimospacecraft and WP:WING Avi (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tali Fahima. This strikes me as a bit of a vanity article and per nom the sources appear to be pretty weak. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Haaretz article, which is the only reliable source that is not self published, describes him as a fringe poet. Also, this article appears in several languages, with similar structure. I'm not fluent in all of those languages, but I suspect auto-translation - and thus self promotion. The bit about Tali Fahima can be added into that article. -- Nudve (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP and WP:BIO require stringent adherence to sourcing requirements regarding controversial statements about people, including statements that people are saying and doing controversial things. Right now there are simply no reliable sources to substantiate most of this article, or which give this individual substantial coverage. WP:BLP removes some of the flexibility for borderline cases that exists for articles on other subjects. Current sourcing just doesn't cut it with WP:BLP. We have to deal with the fact that it's not all that hard for somebody to create a hoax and set up myspace pages etc. as a joke or even in order to libel someone. WP:BLP demands reliable sources that establish basic facts about a controversial individual for a reason. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Benjamin Hanson[edit]

Contested prod by an IP (likely the creator). The subject of this article is non-notable. Hanson's only claim to faim is winning the Teachers' Choice Award, a non-notable award. None of the references establish this author's notability. The first reference is a biography about him from his own publisher. The second reference is to the site where he won the Teachers' Choice Award but his name is not even mentioned on the page. A Google search to this site with Hanson's name also returns no results. The third and last reference is to a list of books by Hanson on Amazon.com. He's written an assortment of books but none of them are notable. I also did three Google News searches on this author. None return a result about him. This person definitely fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see one of his books (Cool cards : creating fun and fascinating collections!) in about 200 libraries, and the many others in less than 100 each. For this sort of material, I don't think that amounts to notability. DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Amy p goldman[edit]

Closed as speedy keep. Nom withdrawn. Did not see the NYTimes and Washington Post.

Asserts notability and has lots of references. A closer look shows connections between many of the osurces and the subject-- articles she's written. I did not find WP:Verifiable sources showing notability. I'm sure she is well regarded by her colleagues at the New York Botanical Garden, but that is not enough. I don't think the NY Sun or Martha Stewart appearances are quite enough to sustain a claim of notability. Dloh cierekim 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grokumentary[edit]

Total neologism. Google has scarcely heard of it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little bit neologism, a little bit advertising for the website at the end of the article + on the (signing) article creator's user page. Quickie engine search didn't turn up anything of value. Townlake (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This neologism is being featured in this article not so much to explore this purported film genre, but to promote a particular film. In short, this is advertising. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as somewhat subtle advertisement, and blatantly invented neologism. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca rock[edit]

WP:NEO, no reliable sources, something someone made up one day, possible hoax ("sometimes called gothic rock") Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neo-genre. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this "genre" seems to be played by one band. Too minor for Wikipedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about "minor" as a reason for deletion, we care about "notable" and "verifiable". If there's only one demonstrable and notable Elven Jedi out there, then Elven Jedi is a non-empty subgroup. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism Artene50 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Says the author. Perhaps someone could suggest a sensible merge with another religious music genre. I obviousluy had a hard time fitting Wicca rock into Gospel rock, Gospel music, Religious music, sacred music, Christian music, Southern Gospel, Jesus music but that Wikipedia has no category for the Wicca religion's music makes it no less true that it exists and should be written about.

"Too minor for Wikipedia" and "seems to be played by one band" are friendly observations that inadvertantly say that a certain religion over another's is deemed too miniscule. That does not seem to warrant deleting the work that I put into this incipient category. I agree that confessed Wiccans and Vegans likely mumerically comprise no more than 1 to 2% of any country's society and that is very small indeed but nevertheless to be encyclopedical and comprehending a wide variety of information on each topic (religious music) is to cover the fullest possible range. We are not discussing whether religious music is germane, we are discussing whether or not a particular religion's music is acceptable.

I would rather address your issues and ask for help in doing that to keep this category of religious music alive in some form. I am collecting additional information about numerous other practitioners

"it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."

"something someone made up one day, possible hoax" doesn't seem to be a valid objection so I can't deall with that.

In summary, I am eager to work at expanding the article to bring it up to snuff. What's needed? Can anyone help? Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You accidentally removed my comment, which isn't the done thing round here. Don't worry, it's fixed (and I made every mistake going when I was new... :-o ). I agree it's not a hoax, I think the question is whether a genre of music played only by one band deserves its own article. Perhaps a redirect to Themis music might be a good option. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to accept that it is not a hoax, but a genre of one is not notable. It is absolutely "something someone came up with one day" and as such should be deleted per WP:NFT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per some of the same comments I made at Themis music's AfD. Although, I have to admit I'm not a 100% sure about what makes a genre notable or even who gets to call something a genre. If it can be reliably sourced independently (all the references seem to be for the band) I'd say include a subsection in Gothic Rock and expand when notable as separate from Themis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is well worth noting that the AfD templates have been removed from this article and that for Themis music by the author and an IP who's only other contribution is the Themis music AfD. We may have an issue with WP:OWN. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let's Assume Good Faith new users make mistakes (or do things on purpose because they don't know better). I don't see a WP:OWN as much as they are the only substantial contributors at present to an article they feel passionately about. Let's stick with the merits and/or flaws of the article and leave behaviour issues for the more appropriate places. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(see below) As an example of the genre, how about Julian Cope? Extremely notable, and certainly an exponent of "Goddess Rock". Would he classify as "Wiccan" though (the precise theological distinctions are beyond my knowledge) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a reliable source that says this, though. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Must be tons of them, just cite a slab of the Peggy Suicide lyrics. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question how can Julian Cope be an example of a "genre" that didn't exist until recently (2007 at the earliest based on the article(s) in question)Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because acts come before the genres they develop. You can't have a genre that nobody ever played. Someone could have a long career before being lumped into a new genre, like with Neil Young and Grunge. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How familiar are you with Copey? He's been doing what he does (which is very obviously Rock with a strong Goddess theme) for years now. It doesn't matter if no-one bothered to label it before. This article probably is about a neologism, but that's not a bad thing. One of our funtions is to describe and explain them, once they're clearly established and notable. The only question really left is whether Copey would count as "Wiccan" or some other branch of neo-pagan droodery. I'm sure TotnesMartin is far more knowledgeable there than I am. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(interrupting the thread :P) well I'm a Pagan, and I have some Julian Cope albums, and his autiobiography (which doesn't mention Wicca, btw) Totnesmartin (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Please understand. I'm not disputing Julian Cope or anything about him or his music. I like pretty much all music (although I really don't know about genres and such because I listen to too much different stuff to get caught up in that. The problem is the article in question isn't about "Goddess Rock" it is about "Wicca Rock" which according to the article (and its references) is a very recent creation of one band. If we can find reliable 3rd party sourcing which helps to separate the two than I wouldn't have a problem with an article on the subject but, this isn't remotely that article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's rather missing the point. What is important is whether the term "Wicca rock" is notable or whether it is a non-notable neologism. That Julian Cope played rock and may have been a Wiccan is neither here nor there. Incidentally, a Google search for "Julian Cope" and "Wicca rock" produces squat. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Copey isn't just a "Goddess-following musician", but that his notable style over many years has made this an integral part of the music (as I asked, how familiar are you with his lyrics?). He makes something that is very likely the canonical example of "Wiccan Rock", and has done it for far longer than this one Canadian band. My only concern is whether he's a "Wiccan", as there are subtle distinctions and schisms around the whole scene. Local to here (SW England), people throw salt at each other in the street because they think they're following a "bad" religion - I'd hate to mis-label anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this cites Julian as a Wiccan, and also pulls in Tori Amos and The Pretenders, but doesn't define a "Wicca rock" as such. There's possibly room for an "influence on music" section in Wicca. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I x'd over from the other thread too. I saw Gospel rock et al and see the point above. I noted that Pagan Radio describes 'Themis' as both "Pagan" and "Gothic". I read Pagan rock and see that it is much different from Wicca rock. Also some of the bands in Pagan rock may belong in Wicca rock the way the latter reads. Christian music has umpteen genres/categories--non-Christian music likely mimics that.

192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pagan rock" is about as far from "Wiccan rock" as Ulster marching bands are from the Sistine chapel. The only things they have in common are rock, and being equally distrusted by Christians. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply lol yes. i get that. i was looking at described musical style and wondered if some bands might be cross genre: wicca/pagan. maybe not after all. cheers. -Joe 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that "Wicca" is a subset of "pagan" (without annoying too many practitioners), but "Pagan rock" as a commonly-used genre is firmly at the dark Odinist end of Paganism. It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think with the clean-up edits done at Themis music and addtional cleanup of the Wicca rock article the concept of a new genre of Wicca rock can survive with the articles. It is also a good suggestion to add an "influence on music" section in Wicca." in the alternative, if this article does nto survive. I agree with Andy Dingley that "It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock" and want to ask for help from Nymphetamine labyrinth and others editing this article to sustain it. Mobrien9279 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (change of opinion from above) As it stands, this isn't a good enough article to preserve. The topic of this article "Wiccan themes in the music of Themis", which I can't see as being sufficiently notable, outside a section of that band's own article.

As an article (even a category) on "Wiccan rock", then I think this would be a fine and notable subject. It would have to include the scope of all the bands currently playing "Wiccan rock", which would include Themis, Julian Cope and probably others. It should also have a nod in the direction of Pagan rock and early-70s bands making a move towards environmentalist and neo-Wiccan themes (almost any old hippy still playing after the '73 oil crisis, notably CSNY and their collaborators). As this article stands though, it's just not well enough written. It's a prime (and unnecessary) example of WP:COAT where it tries to hang a whole genre on too-close a look at one band. It's a good subject, but this isn't an encyclopaedic article to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Andy Can you write something that explains how Julian Cope fits. I would love to but can't but maybe there's more to Cope than I have seen. cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You best bet is probably to ask at talk:Julian Cope Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note To Andy (please help me)I re-wrote the article using everyone's suggestions pretty much. Hellboy and I think Katie were walking all over me as i did that but I dont think there's any point in nitpicking the original article because even I think it sucks and I wrote it. :s So the new piece is a new start. And I don't exactly know how to do what you suggested insofaras category syntax goes. Please help if you will. Could I also beg a para from you on cope? Much thanks :o) Cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We need to start with the sources, and then write the article according to them. The problem is that Wiccan Rock is a neologism, and that there are no reliable sources (that I know of) discussing Wiccan Rock. A broader article, such as Wiccan Music, or a Category such as Wiccan Musicians may be appropriate if adequate sources are found. Find the sources first, and then write the article according to them - remember Wikipedia is not the place for original research. DigitalC (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan![edit]

Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, compilations are not generally notable, meaning that they do not gain notability from the bands which appear in them. The article does not assert the notability of the album at all, and completely lacks sources. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no notability whatsoever, and as an aside, I question the notability of some of the bands on it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 3 bands listed are not redlinks, and only one of those would likely pass muster with WP:MUSIC. DarkAudit (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~Strong Delete Per DarkAudit. There are also no sources, which makes me wonder about credibility. America69 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be speedied, actually, since CSD A7 doesn't cover albums and none of the other CSD apply either. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed that. America69 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and to the republic, for which it stands.... Sorry, WP:MUSIC problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod: Fails WP:Notability (music): compilation album from a record label that itself has no article and whose website hosting appears to have expired. No evidence of notability given. Articles like this make me wish WP:CSD#A7 applied to albums. --Closeapple (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . I was waffling between no consensus and delete on this for a while, but the keep arguments are not persuasive. The delete argument that not enough non-trivial and independent sources exist for the site was never fully rebutted and no other such sources were found. I am willing to restore if more sources are found. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-premie.org[edit]

This site would appear to fail Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria for notability. There appear to be only a handful reliable sources that have ever referred to the site; none of them appear to have exceeded a brief summary of the nature of the site's content, as required by WP:WEB. Jayen 466 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jayen 466 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Website-related deletion discussions. Jayen 466 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice of this discussion given at talkpages of WP:WEBSITES and WP:RELIGION. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(primary author) Keep - I know the base isn't too broad, but it satisfies the needs of WP:WEB: it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself;
~~Alternatively: redirect, see below (Nik Wright's entry)~~ --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC) updated 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it to "keep" again, after an additional reliable source was added to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (disclaimer: I have a declared COI on the subject, submitting this comment for uninvolved editors assessment)

Per WP:WEB, a website is considered notable only if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. [...] excluding Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address [...] or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"

The sources provided in the article, besides the one by Ron Geaves, all fall within the exceptions stated, as follows:

Mather - mention of the web address only
Good Weekend - self-reference by the founder of the site, not an independent description of the site contents
Rocky Mountain news - Trivial coverage, does not describe the contents of the site
The Register - Does not discuss the content of the site, just a mention of its existence by the webmaster of the site, not an independent description of the site contents. In addition, there is no consensus about the status of that online publication about being a WP:RS

In summary, it seems that there is only one non-trivial/independent of the site itself description of the site content (Geaves), which does not convey notability as per the guideline that requires "multiple non-trivial published works". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Good Weekend is not a "self-reference" in the sense that the source (Good Weekend) is independent of the site itself. Such magazine and its reporters are free to interview who they want, if they publish the result of such interview that adds to the notability of their interviewee (and the topic they're interviewing him/her about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is related to the site itself: The journalist was a member of the group, as per evidence presented elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not a group, so "the journalist was a member of the group" makes no sense.

Just to add to Francis's comment, the journalist has contributed to the site, but so have over 300 other people. There is no 'group' despite Jossi's and other Rawat followers' repeated claims that there is. --John Brauns (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Rush (book) was published by someone who was a member of the "group" of followers of Prem Rawat. Whether or not she was a member of that group does not make a difference for the fact that that book contributed to the notability of Rawat. Similar for the journalist, whether or not he was related to a website is irrelevant for the notability added to that website resulting from the publication by a third-party publisher. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Jossi's COI regarding a competitor website should, indeed, duly be considered imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I posted my disclosure, with the hope that arguments are cosidered on their merits by editors not involved in this dispute, such as you who create this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please retract your Good Weekend argument, you know it is unjustified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need to retract a comment, and I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Re. "I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement": tx.

It is however clear you wanted to influence the outcome of this debate with arguments without merit. The assessment by uninvolved editors should keep that in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should also please keep in mind Jossi's disruptive editing of Ex-premie.org, see example below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Each of the "sources" given fail to establish notability as they merely mention "ex-premie.org" and do not focus on it nor feature it. Most of the article is original research, as the sources do not support what is said in the article (i.e., founder, members, etc.). Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this your third edit ever to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=202372876 ?
- Re. "as the sources do not support what is said in the article":
  - "founder": in fact: founders: confirmed by the sources (Good Weekend, the history page at the ex-premie.org website) – please explain your problem, I see none.
  - "members": the only occurrence of the word "member" is in a direct quote from a source (The Guardian). Note Jossi's disruptive editing here: [17] (it confuses while it doesn't explicit that the quote refers to members recovering from the Divine Light Mission not any elusive members of a "website"); then here he deletes the other instance of material referenced to The Guardian that does explicit who is intended by "members" by the author of that article: [18]. I restored the correct phrasing now: [19] – in other words Jossi in action at COI editing
  - "etc" – please explicit if you see any other problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Merely a comment, not a vote at all, for me, it would be inappropriate. I merely want to ask the parties here, who are involved in the Prem Rawat mediation case, not to, er, question every editor over their !vote, when they !vote. As you all know, this is a contentious area, and this sort of behaviour will strongly dissuade participation in this AFD. That said, I'd encourage editors to participate in this debate, but I know the chances are slim given the contentiousness of this area of editing. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, should have given more attention to the merits of the arguments: "Most of the article is original research" is plain bogus and without merit – and insofar the argument had merit it was caused by Jossi's disruptive editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Windy Wanderer was involved in the Prem Rawat arbitration case, that's what I think should've been made explicit, as I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vote As the current webmaster of the site I do not think it will be appropriate for me to vote. And just to put other editors' minds at rest I will not lose any sleep whichever way the vote goes! :-) --John Brauns (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I was a source for the John MacGregor article in Good Weekend(which I never retracted, btw). Therefore, I'll recuse myself from voting here. There is also content on EPO under my (real) name. I'll echo what John said: I also won't lose any sleep over which way this vote goes. Also want to add that there is no "Ex-premie group." There are people who have discussions on an internet forum and it is a sort of online community, but isn't a group that is part of Ex-premie.org, which is a website, not a group of people. The "group" idea is something that premies (adherents) of Prem Rawat made up and perpetuated through repetition of the same. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) - there does seem to be enough discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to satisfy WP:WEB. With some work on formatting and syntax it is possible this article could become a quality piece. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minor mentions doesn't make it notable.Momento (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the group, whether or not it exists, nor the website seems to be notable enough for inclusion. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the article by Ron Geaves, none of the other articles can be attributed to reliable sources. For example, the author of the article in The Good Weekend subsequently withdrew his claims, apologised to many people for his allegations, asked the webmaster of the ex-premie.org site to remove his authored material (a request that was denied) and was proven to have been an unreliable witness in a court of law in Australia. It cannot be claimed that the article can be attributed to reliable sources.

The site does not meet the notability guidelines. The mentions made in various other articles hardly rates the site as notable, and the sources are not independent of the subject. If a couple of mentions in a few newspapers confers notability, Wikipedia would be swamped by spurious and irrelevant material. Apart from the Geaves article, nothing on the site is independent of the site itself.

It seems strange that Wikipedia should become a site that indexes websites. If there was a phenomenon that could be discussed, as generally occurs in encyclopedia entries, then it might be included. But acting as an index for a website? Hardly a legitimate activity for Wikepedia. Armeisen (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This site seems to be for the promotion of personal POVs Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per primary author , or alternatively re-direct as per Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria note 2 ^ Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Re. "...may be redirected..." – I'd propose Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations as a target page candidate in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
  Withdrawn "redirect" option, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a multitude of sources have been provided that demonstrate external attention to the subject. Everyking (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with few sources. This organization may become notable in the future, but until such a time, should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Windy Wanderer. — goethean ॐ 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed in a surprising number of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Contemporary radio panel[edit]

Indiscriminate, outdated list of stations that report for the Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks charts. No source could be found to verify this info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to store lists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cunard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Signing up for a tournament is not notable. Kevin (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Gardiner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not close to being notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. He has professional tennis at the highest level. Reso lute 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete per below. No sources found to back up claims in article. Reso lute 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been deleted and recreated multiple times now. Personal section and username obviously seem to be the subject. Technically being professional does not make him notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Er....yes it does. Subject has competed at a professional level in a professional tournament, so he satisfies WP:ATHLETE. WilliamH (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per what's unfolded, subject is unverifiable. My comment here is to Delete. WilliamH (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we have different rules for those competing in junior status? --which seems to be the case here. I thought we were less inclusive for them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are, but I was under the impression that ATP Challenger Series is a professional tournament. If someone more clued up on ATP tennis is able to shed more light, by all means do so. WilliamH (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no trace of the guy according to the ATP. The calendar of events produced by ATP [20] and [21] doesn't have an LA event listed until NEXT month. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Contact International Tennis Federation at +44 (0)20 8878 6464 if you have any questions. Casey Gardiner's ipin on our records is GAR1227171. Use that reference when calling the ITF. Our records show he is signed up for 3 tournaments in the month of September. USA F22 FUTURES - CLAREMONT, CA on 08 September 2008 - 14 September 2008, USA F23 FUTURES - COSTA MESA, CA on 15 September 2008 - 21 September 2008, and USA F25 FUTURES - LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA on 29 September 2008 - 05 October 2008. All three have an entry status of "Entered".ATPTennis (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasn't actually competed in a professional tournament yet, then he fails the notability criteria for athletes. WilliamH (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im in not place to talk about this subject but this guy seems to have played in a main draw once in Yuma City. As a junior he did play in the qualifying rounds of professional tournaments. He is listed on tennisrecruiting.com as a top rated high school player in 2006. I called the number because I'm sort of curious. Name checks out in their database listed as a player on the Pro Tour. I'm in the military and I checked his name on our end. He is an active duty member in the Marine Corps. It shows he had orders cut to participate in a "competitive tennis tournament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.55 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IP" would you mind confirming who in the United States government disclosed to you information about an individual soldiers deployment orders. The process you went about in order to garner this information. And lastly, why his deploying to participate in a "competitive tennis tournament" makes him notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Personel Administrative Clerk in the Marine Corps. It's really quite easy to look up members. He had orders cut from May 27th to June 9th for a tennis tournament. We have free international calling here in this office and so I called the ITF and they confermed his playing activity and record. I stumbled upon this article by browsing through our IP edit logs.138.162.140.55 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a Personnel Administrative Clerk I would have expected you to be able to spell "personnel", and also to know that you are putting yourself at risk of severe disciplinary action by revealing this confidential personal and operationally sensitive information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much impossible to find out who he is. It looks like the entire Navy/Marines Corps uses a total of 3 different IP's for all their work stations. I'm pretty sure they would be more keen on disciplinary actions of the service members editing posts about the Navy/Marine Corps and replacing it with offensive material. Non the less, his word isn't notable since its not public knowledge. I'm kind of tempted to call the number but since its Sunday I'm pretty sure their offices are not open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.26.9 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Anthony Appleyard per CSD A7 due to no indication of significance or importance. WilliamH (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Kalwajtys[edit]

NN subject. Loukinho (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how would you like me to make the article better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodeekay (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia welcomes your collaborations and in order to make it a better article, reliable sources (books written by experts, government documents, peer-reviewed university research, world-class newspapers and magazines) must be added to the article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia: Articles without proper citation/sources must be deleted from wikipedia as the content cannot be verifiable and more than that, might not be encyclopedic. Most of the biographies articles are just quickly deleted falling into the Speedy Deletion criteria. This one was an exception as I recognize your efforts in mentioning sources to the article but again, they need to be reliable sources. If you have any other questions you can also leave me a message on my Talk Page. Thank you. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can post bios at http://www.Wikipopuli.com or http://wikibios.com – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Brody, but none of the conditions in WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO seem to apply to you. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN COI. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is totally absent. I am a bit surprised this didn't get a CSD swat when it was first posted. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete So tagged, A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Orangemike; third speedy deletion thus far. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOBR Boardies[edit]

Vanity page of a message board group, fails WP:NOTMYSPACE. ~~CSD A7 probably doesn't apply, hence the AfD.~~ Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it does (I need to stop taking this too far :p), but I'll let an uninvolved administrator take care of it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where did the article go? 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - two of us think it is an attack page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollmanize[edit]

I'm listing this for deletion it seems to be essentially a dictionary definition of an obscure neologism. A Google search brought back zero results (not that that is in itself a sufficient test), and it doesn't appear in any of the dictionaries I have access to. If the description is true, it seems like it should be easy to source and/or provide an etymology, but there is neither in the article as of this listing. My only guesses as to what this really is are speculative and fail to assume good faith, so I'll leave it at that. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFT --T-rex 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism and dicdef. JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, this seems like a thinly veiled attack page against someone named Bollman. Were that any clearer, I'd recommend a G10 speedy. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jones (songwriter)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. PROD declined. Google finds 56 hits for 56 "Phil Jones" "The Art of War" and 26 hits for "Phil Jones" Summerhouse, none of those seems to be a reliable source. Amalthea (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to meet just one criteria of WP:MUSIC IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoughGlamour (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

working on it!! christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.66.249 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lamb[edit]

Tagged for notability since November 07. Sources barely even mention him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources more than "barely even" menton him. He dressed up as a rapping Santa, as described in Yo! Church Uses Pimped Out Santa On Rap Video. He is the only person quoted in Communities of Faith: Hey, egg hunters, look out below! and Easter eggs to rain from sky in Canton event. Is he a leading theological thinker? The references don't tell us that. Have reliable sources talked about him at length? Yes, so he's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References seem to refer more specifically to the subject's church, rather than the subject himself, and would do better as establishing the notability of the church than the pastor. The pastor himself, however, while quoted, is not apparently a significant subject of the references. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With some regret, Delete. The pastor of a NN church is almost certainly NN too. It would be great if there could be more articles on notable churches, but the current view is that most are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few mentions in novelty articles do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine), and there is nothing there which can be used as the basis for a biographical article anyway. --Stormie (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references also argue in favor of the notability of the church, which means the argument "The pastor of a NN church is almost certainly NN too." doesn't apply here. --Eastmain (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1: Not enough context to identify subject. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Triolgy[edit]

The article might have been created as a test page by user Jaja9 (talk · contribs). The article's title is "Family Triolgy", the main body of the article says "Family Troligy" but I'm assuming the author means "Family Trilogy". A Google search for each one of those three search strings brings up no promising WP:RS leads to establish what the subject of the article really is or to expand it further. I pondered nominating it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G2, mostly because the creating editor has really done nothing else other than testing, but I'm listing it here just to be safe. I'm OK with any admin speedy deleting it if they find it appropriate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete either G2 or A1, so tagged. Sub-sub-stub with tpyos in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Could find no evidence of such a film. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content --T-rex 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bendik[edit]

Delete nn voice actor with a few roles, sufficiently nn that our article cannot tell us when or where she was born or whether she's even still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not proven notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. Her IMDb entry shows that she just hasn't reached fame yet. She is credited with "unknown episodes" in the three TV series she has been in. Furthermore, a Google News Archive search on her returns no results. Cunard (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article consists of nothing but voiceover credits IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing nomination to redirect to Season 7 of American Idol. Article appears to be a duplicate of Daniel Noriega, which redirects to the same place. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Anthony Noriega[edit]

Contested prod. I was tempted to nominate this for speedy, but thought I would bring it here for discussion. Article is about a singer who missed the final 12 on American Idol. If anything, page should be a redirect to the appropriate season of AI. TN‑X-Man 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ciccone[edit]

Contested prod. Notability is not inherited (from his sister), and thus his only claim to fame is his book (ironically) about his sister. WP:ONEEVENT applies, I believe. RayAYang (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tricky. The book is probably already a WP:BK slam dunk due to its press coverage, but I always say I'd rather see an article on an author than an article on a book (except in select cases), because an author can always write another book, but a book can almost never get another author. This might be one of the select cases where the book is wroth an article but the author isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep the article. The author and book have been talked about frequently in the media and are clearly objects of interest.206.41.234.41 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's put himself into the media spotlight in a big way. Had this been nominated two months ago, this might have been appropriate. If he vanishes off the face of the earth after the book furor dies down, take it back to AfD then, when we can take a longer view of his WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he merits inclusion as an author of a best selling book. These things change, but as of this writing it's #15 overall on amazon. [22]. He and his book have been the subject of widespread international coverage. From Northern Ireland [23] to South Africa [24] to China[25], he's receieved significant coverage. (There are tons and tons of US and UK papers, as well as more international stories if you'd like to see for yourself at Google News) Did he get his notability by leeching off his sister? You bet. But now that he's been on Good Morning America, has a best selling memoir, and plenty of reviews about it, he's notable. Vickser (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the author of a best selling book. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's got his own notability now. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day By The River[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Albums do not appear to be released on a major label. Only the second album, Fly, is listed on allmusic, and the label for this release, DBR, could indicate a self-published album. References are iffy. Only the ZDnet link could undoubtedly pass WP:RS. Personal sites and the subject's own sites certainly don't, and online 'zines are questionable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-released albums, insufficient reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --T-rex 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? DarkAudit (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is notable --T-rex 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Proof or it didn't happen If you don't intend to prove your claim, I suggest you go away and troll someone else. Your reputation precedes you. DarkAudit (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What didn't happen? I think the fact that it is notable, is really the only reason anything is ever kept. --T-rex 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine, then Take your games elsewhere. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Accuse me of trolling? Yes, that proves the articles non-notability --T-rex 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. External links [26], [27] include coverage by independent secondary sources, so the article meets WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I took those into account before I posted the AfD. Two sources does not rise to the level of "significant" coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they did, but then "significant" is a problematic word as it can be interpreted at opposite extremes ("extraordinary" versus "measurably above the noise level") and yet other interpretations are possible. I interpret it as "substantive", meaning that the source substatially (not incidentally) covers the subject. Could you please explain what you understand by "level of significant coverage"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you go point by point through the guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC, they fail to meet every guideline but one. (The production team does not truly meet "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable".) We're left with "multiple non-trivial published works". Of which we have but two. That only just meets the definition of "multiple". When all the other points are missed, two articles isn't substantial enough to make up for it. DarkAudit (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meggan Anderson[edit]

Contested prod. I believe fails WP:ENTERTAINER. A few guest roles on TV shows, and most of the references do not devote any significant number of electrons to covering her. RayAYang (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete for now although her role in this film Spark Riders, might make it ok depending on how notable that fim is. Buc (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G12 for blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Temperature Compensator[edit]

Unsourced article, which is read like promotional material. Probably violates also copyright policy as at least part of it is copied from this page. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Copyright violation of [28]. I tagged it as such. --Amalthea (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Whaling Commission. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of International Whaling Commission annual meetings[edit]

Don't see why this requires a whole article. Also, the IWC occasionally has 'special meetings' as well, which aren't included here. Incidentally, it IS rubbish as the list is partial (only since 1969) -- believe me, it was much worse before I made some substantial edits! Anyway, it just seems to me it's ENTIRELY unnecessary to have an article on this non-topic Jonathanmills (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Whaling Commission article. Yeah, it's a list I suppose, but I think it would work better in the article rather than a stand-alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless expanded to note more information than the location, e.g. major agreements reached. --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I would suggest making that a two or three column table. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that a) there is already a subsection in the IWC article entitled 'Annual meetings of the IWC' (which is where this article was linked from), and that it contains a smaller but far more attractive, six-column table, and b) while I agree with Dhartung that it COULD be valid to have an article on IWC meetings which contained more information (although I don't happen to think it's worthwhile myself), just to emphasise that the title of this article is 'SITES of IWC annual meetings' so is by definition just about the locations. Also it is only about *annual* meetings, but the IWC occasionally has intersessional 'special' meetings, so this seems ridiculously over-categorised. Anyway, that's the reasons I think it should be deleted. Thanks, guys, for all your feedback. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barnes (actor)[edit]

Child actor from the 70s took part on his debut film, its sequel, and some tv series episodes (including a hollyday special). Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER (correct me if I'm wrong). Article was probably created by subject himself (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Barnes_.28actor.29). Damiens.rf 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep. Clearly meets notability guidelines. Nomination stems from dispute regarding spam links (which I agree with), but this doesn't mean article should be deleted. Article was created over three years ago (March 2005) by another user. Tan ǀ 39 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tan. I was cautious enough to say "correct me if I'm wrong" in regard to being wrong about the article not fulfilling WP:ENTERTAINER. After re-revising that criteria, I still don't see which of those criterion this bio would met. If you can point me that (or point any other problem with my reasoning) I would be glad to revoke this nomination.

You're right that the spam dispute was what brought my attention to this article. But this deletion debate should be decided on the bio's own merits. So, why should we have a bio on this 70's child actor if he didn't "had significant roles in multiple notable films", he didn't have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor had him "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."? --Damiens.rf 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to realize that we're discussing a guideline here, not a policy. I'd say his acting resume makes him at least borderline, and the article does link to a reference where the subject was the primary target of significant, reliable coverage. In light of your arguments, however, I'm removing the "speedy" part of my !vote to help foster more debate. Tan ǀ 39 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I thought that was a policy, not just a guideline. My fault on this regard. --Damiens.rf 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination follows an editing dispute that appears to have started yesterday. I'm not sure if this is covered by [WP:POINT], but I don't see any reason for deletion. Major role in a major film from 1976, and notability isn't lost even with the passage of 30 years. I will acknowledge that [WP:ENTERTAINER] refers to "significant roles" in multiple notable films; the guideline for a notable film is that it got full-length reviews by 2 or more nationally known critics. The rest is open for debate, I suppose. What's significant? How much is multiple? Significant is not defined, although I would imagine that being mentioned in the opening credits is more significant than being listed as "Guy #2" in the closing credits, or not credited at all. The Bad News Bears got reviewed. The 1977 sequel got reviews too... horrible, "go see Star Wars instead" reviews, but still reviews. Nominator suggests a strict interpretation of the notability guideline, although I think that the vast majority of articles about actors would be gone if it's interpreted to mean that one has not only be in several films, but to be a star in those films as well. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's common practice to have articles on One-hit wonder actors, then this afd should be closed, the bio kept, and the guideline updated to reflect consensus. --Damiens.rf 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article lists seven movies/TV appearances, not one... and IMDB lists nine. At least two were major picutres, The Bad News Bears and The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training. Seven, nine, and even two are all numbers greater than one. Therefore, he's not a "one-hit wonder" actor. Maybe a "two-hit wonder"... but now that you mention it, what is the specific guideline that says "one-hit wonders" are not noteworthy?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article, just as well as imdb and just as well as this nomination, lists appearances in 1 major movie and its sequel, and 7 one-episode appearances on tv-series. That is to say he's only notable for his character on the bears movie, and this is a one-hit-wonder on my criteria (actually not, because he was never a "wonder"). Anyway, it's becoming clear on the discussion on this page that being a 70's one-hit is enough to deserve a bio on Wikipedia. In regard to the "specific guideline", I never really mentioned one existed. --Damiens.rf 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Huh? So if Sean Connery had only played one character--James Bond, then we should delete the article about him because he only played one character multiple times? What about Desmond Llewelyn?? Moses Harry Horwitz, Andrew Louis Feinberg, and Jerome Lester Horwitz each made careers out of playing the same characters (Moe, Larry, and Curly)! I would say that playing the same character in two major movies is two events, not one: especially since the movies were released over a year apart.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In these cases, the notability of the character itself makes a difference. Everybody likes winning disputes, but comparing James Bond (character) or Three Stooges to "Tanner Boyle" was a little bit over the top. --Damiens.rf 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. He was notable in 1976, he's notable today.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment / Proposal: Since his notability is completely dependent on the "bears movies"'s notability, and he seems to have never had (in 30 years!) any independent coverage outside of that movie's context, isn't it inappropriate to have a standalone bio article instead of just mention him on the movie's articles? --Damiens.rf 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Actually, no. See WP:NTEMP for details... but in a nutshell, that would be like saying that Abraham Lincoln hasn't done anything since his death on April 15, 1865 that we should merge it into President of the United States. Okay, that's a major stretch on significance, but it's the same concept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding general precedent is for actors with at least two significant film roles to deserve articles, regardless of coverage (which would be difficult to get online for the 1970s in any case). Notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two strong credits to his name. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, this is the result of an unrelated dispute regarding Fair use issues and the fact that I agreed with Ryan_Postlethwaite that Damiens.rf's use of twinkle was inappropriate. He came to this article to "get revenge" and to intimidate.

Edit: He also trashed The_Color_of_Friendship, Brandon Cruz's article and Chris Barnes' home town of Oradell, New Jersey. He should be blocked indefinitely for this.

Second, I admit I'm the author of a site about Chris Barnes. Damiens.rf contends that this is a WP:COI issue, when in fact, the guideline that covers an instance like this is WP:EL#ADV, Advertising and conflicts of interest, which he never cited or mentioned. He's just doing slash and burn editing to cause another editor grief.

Third, how is it that you, Damiens.rf, know so much about Chris Barnes? Why are you able to say with such certainty that he is a one-hit wonder or that he hasn't even attained cult status? I could show you the web stats if they were any of your business. Where's your research?

Fourth, the email link is, admittedly, "a Google thang," but your assumption made me laugh.

And last of all, since this is a WP:EL#ADV issue - for now, at least - your use of the term "spam," Tan, and your threat, "Cbsite has a long block history; any more spam violations and it will probably get longer" are entirely inappropriate.

BTW, I vote to Delete the article.

Cbsite (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote-counting. What's your rationale for deleting the article? --Damiens.rf 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added persistently was inappropriate. You do have a block history for disruptive editing. And the threat stands; add that link again and I'll block you for disruptive editing. Whether or not you think this threat is inappropriate is irrelevant; you've been warned accordingly. Feel free to complain about it, however. Tan ǀ 39 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attitude! Cbsite (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs drastic reworking, but the subject is clearly notable based on his work. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. Radioinfoguy (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Process Management[edit]

Contest prod; the only source is the subject of the article, reads like an advertisement/biography, does not explain the notability of the topic. Maxim_(talk) 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Presumably spam for Hammer & Co. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's exactly one hit on google looking for "Dynamic Process Management" "Ray Blackman": [29]. Not notable.
I don't see what that Hammer company has to do with the article by the way.--Amalthea (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimity of respondents. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Snavely[edit]

Non-notable. Already appears on List of mayors of Compton, California and the current article adds no new notable information. Renee (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California. I would examine those other entries closely per WP:POLITICIAN, as the city is a bit short of the 100,000 threshold I prefer for mayors, who are generally considered short of the guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails WP:POLITICIAN. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McSweeney (martial artist)[edit]

Notability, 6 months tagged as unsourced and for notability non added. G test inconclusive but not promising Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep well-known Kenpoist but lacking in sources. JJL (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google books search reveals several potential sources. I do believe this needs to be brought into line with WP:BLP soon but since I see nothing especially controversial in it now, it's not dire. Mango juice^talk 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a la JJL. Not sure if WP:BLP applies: he is not alive. I cleaned the copyright material from the article but did not find any strong notability source. Does anyone have information about his book? jmcw (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. McSweeney is definitely notable in the Martial Arts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Choson[edit]

All that this article says is that in 2004 a (redlinked) North Korean defector proposed that, if the North Korean government were deposed, its successor might be called the Republic of Choson, a name taken from an earlier Korean state (see Joseon). The article has recently been tagged as a hoax; I don't think it's that, but no sources are quoted, there is no indication that the proposal made any impact, and the whole thing seems (a) hypothetical and (b) unimportant - a matter of words only. In November 2004 the article was redirected to Joseon, but in February 2006 it was resuscitated; not a lot has happened to it since. The redirect does not seem appropriate as Joseon was not a republic. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of it. According to this article, it's an idea made up by one defector. Not notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is silly. It's a "proposed replacement" for North Korea. Hey, talk to Kim Jong-il about it, and if you can get him to agree, let's see what we can do about those nuclear weapons. Let's propose some replacements for Great Britain while we're at it-- "Republic of Albion" sounds good. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this defector is notable, write an article for him, but not this. Everyking (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Pointy nom by SPA. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Nielsen[edit]

Relatively unknown Canadian political figure. Fails WP: Notability. Chicagoland2 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep before the WP:Snow falls - subject was deputy prime minister. This is nominators only contribution. Suspect joke or POV pushing -Hunting dog (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Hunting dog - a nonsense nomination. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I predict a blizzard...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and block the nominator as a vandalism-only account. --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep I hate to be rude, but this is the single most absurd AfD nomination I've seen to date. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menno de Ruijter[edit]

Contested prod. Article's subject appears to be notable for one event only. TN‑X-Man 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:ONEEVENT. If sources exist should be covered briefly in the gameshow article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT seems to fit here. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, okay with recreation if the article's well-written. Wizardman 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Pike[edit]

The return of a once-Speedy Deleted article. Fails WP:RS and I would question whether it passes WP:MUSIC. Too much of the text reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision: I can't tell if it fails or passes WP:MUSIC, but if it does pass, it needs to be re-written. Leonard^(Bloom) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the text was a copyright violation of [30].
I have no opinion otherwise - there's a bit of name dropping going on [31][32], but nothing to really establish notability. --Amalthea (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are six sources: youtube, face book, two from her personal website, and the other two appear to be broken links. If there are no secondary sources, then fails WP:N. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tending towards Keep although it needs much improvement. She has released 3 albums and has toured/is touring nationally. Two Google News results: [33] & [34]. Seems like she is currently undertaking a substantial national tour, which may be sufficient to meet criterion 4 of WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Further coverage of varying quality, from the first few pages of google hits: [35], [36], [37]. --Michig (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLcat Translator Project[edit]

Non-notable website (not to be confused with the LOLCat Bible Translation Project). A mention on a blog does not meet WP:WEB. Contested speedy, bringing it here. Sandstein 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amusing thought it is, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would say speedily under WP:WEB TrulyBlue (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn --T-rex 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lolcat --T-rex 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering what 'lolspeak' is, a webpage of gibberish sounds like a complete success :P. -- saberwyn 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, has already been deleted via PROD, and I see no new sources presented, reliable or otherwise. Reso lute 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet: Non-notable websiet. translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that is not a very well known website but some of the people that suggested this article to be deleted seem not to be knowledgable on the subject or not having read the actual article carefuly. In particular, RHaworth claims that "Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish." Well he either gave to the website a page not written in English language or he does not understand lolcat speak which is the language that is used by thousands (if not millions) of enthusiasts many of whom visit every day icanhascheezburger.com to chat in that slang/lingo/dialect or whatever you want to call it. In respect to the claim made by Resolute the article actually has new sources this is why I put it up again, I wouldn't otherwise! :) I had accepted the previous deletion due to lack of secondary or triatary references of the article 2 months ago. But I recently came across a review about that website so I decided to update the original article to cite/include this third party source and I put it up again. I understand that the changes might be small and therefore "invisible" but they are there. Furthermore, I just tried searching for "lolcat translator" in google and yahoo and in google slangaholic.com is the 7th result while in yahoo.com is the 2nd one. Considering that there are more than ten websites attempting to provide lolcat translation services this is a considerable ranking reflecting popularity. And for those that might be wondering why I chose to write an article about this particular one, the reason is that this is the translator I am using and so it happens that I know some more things about it and its quirks and thus I feel comfortable on writting an article that might help people learn something about it. EvansGeorge (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im in Wikypeedia, deleetn ur unsorced non-notable articul! translation NOT provided by LOLcat Translator Project because it didn't work when I tried itReyk _YO! 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is working for me! "It iz wurkin foar meh! I iz in yur Wikipedia, deletin yur unsourceded non-notable article!" translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project 79.72.13.109 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOLCATZ may b notable dis websiet izn'. itz goted noes reliable 3rd party sourcez. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I still hold the other views as expressed on the block of text I posted above, but after reading the Wikipedia:Notability (web) page which is more specific to the subject of this article than the general Wikipedia:Notability one on which I based the update to the article and my previous commend, I agree that the 3rd party source referenced by this article does not fulfill the reliability criteria (as of Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Therefore I change my vote and agree that for this reason this article should be deleted, but I would like to ask prermission that if in the future reliable 3rd party sources become available me or others can retry to recreate an improved copy of it. Thx foar teh feedbax! EvansGeorge (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Academic Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/National Academic Championship

I have worked with this article on and off for a few months. There are really no reliable sources to cover this article. The article has been greatly pared down, until an an editor asked why it existed in the absence of reliable sources. Searches turned up blogs, message boards, and the company's rather biased home page. Article was deprodded. Fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with revisions. This deletion campaign has arisen over the "unreliability" of the criticism (since first-hand reporting and falling attendance don't appear to be valid... but that's another story), but there is still significant information on the page that is neutral and undisputed (rules, basic history, champions). These pieces of information are "reliable" - a search on Factiva reveals a newspaper article on each national champion since at least 1990, for example. --Bdsmith (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I cannot vouch for others, but please do not accuse me of a bad faith nomination (which is what you are indirectly doing here, whether it is intended or not).~~ This criticism deletion may have been the impetus for generating discussion, but I can assure you that it is not the reason for this AfD. There may be those who are upset about a critique being thrown out, but when it came down to it, there was a question as to how an article can exist without the presence of reliable source written about the subject. The sources regarding past champions can be discussed after secondary sources written about the subject of this article can be found. My concern is that there aren't any, and another editor (I believe the one who deleted the critique) even noted that in the absence of those sources, the standing of the article is shaky. I searched, and could find no supporting secondary sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To counter your reliable sources, I come from a town of 17,000 that hosts an annual spelling bee. Every single champion over the past 40 years has had an article in the local papers. That does not confer notability to the spelling bee. If the bee itself were the subject of articles and such, then the spelling bee makes an assertion of notability. The articles you describe assert the notability of the teams involved, and could be used to build a case to support their claims of a championship, but as I read WP:N, the sources you describe are not enough. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no independent sources on the championship exist (apart from random local reports of school teams winning it). --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Some of those associated with the article assert that no sources can be found. I find that extremely strange, but I myself am not in a position to find them. If sufficient stories have been written about winners of the contest, they are notable for winning the contest--in which case the contest is also notable. DGG (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources. DGG, perhaps its sounds strange, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. As LonelyBeacon noted, articles on winners are not secondary sources. There are many articles on schools/students winning non-notable conttests. Without secondary sources, there is no notability. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia policy. WP:RS states that "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Since sources for this article would consist of the tournament's own page, message boards (the main hub of quiz bowl communication) and a quiz bowl specific Wiki, none of which would be reliable, the site must be deleted per Wikipedia policy. --Leftsaidfred (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reliable sources cannot be found. Shawn Pickrell (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia policy. The issue at hand is that the topic of quiz bowl in general does not have sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Are there hundreds of intelligent people from whom you'd be able to get perfectly accurate information? Sure. Do the supposedly reliable sources that quiz bowl Wiki articles consist of anything more than interviews with a small sample of those people, interspersed with uninformed perusal of a few websites? Regrettably. I don't think the participants will ever consider the "scholarship" written on quiz bowl, if ever there is any, to be an accurate portrayal of the activity. Other issue, DGG: it's horribly circular to say that the competition is notable because to win a competition is notable, and things with notable winners are notable. If I hold a looks-like-me contest in my backyard and win it, by your logic I am notable (and deserve an article) since I've won something, and the contest is notable because I won it. To establish that this competition is notable, you'll have to find a lot more besides "it has been won." Everyday847 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I worded it, I do not think it circular. If winning a competition is notable, and this can be shown by a great number of good RS media references to people winning t hat competion, that proves that the competition in turn is important. If it werent, nobody would bother mentioning that people won it. DGG (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we operate from the presumption of inclusion, that things are notable unless proven otherwise? I don't think so. Your idea of "good" media is kind of silly, because it's not like these pieces are great journalism; it's the same formula of team x won competition y, let's interview the contestants, done. That literally does make every competition notable, since when almost anything happens there's an article written about it somewhere. This reminds me a little of Euthyphro--is that which is pious so because it is loved by the gods, or because of some innate quality? I think that there ought to be external criteria for whether something is notable--we shouldn't say that it's notable because people have noted it. 68.162.156.58 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark with citations needed. Just because you have not found reliable sources yet does not mean none exist. dml (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, technically, right in saying that there's no implication there. Hypothetically, there could be sources. But ask anyone involved in the community: there are no sources that satisfy Wikipedia policy. Keeping "citation needed" is a fraud; it suggests that people are trying to find them (or that they could potentially exist) when really neither is the case. If we had a "unsourceable" tag, or a "rank speculation" tag, then sure--but the idea of "citation needed" suggests "otherwise accurate, or of some kind of determinant truth-value, but not sourced," which is not at all the correct impression.68.162.156.58 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2 minute lexis-nexis search turns up

St. Petersburg Times (Florida) June 28, 1991, Friday, City Edition Bloomingdale "brain team' is winner despite losses BYLINE: MICHELLE JONES, SECTION: BRANDON TIMES; Pg. 3, LENGTH: 477 words, DATELINE: BRANDON

Newsweek July 2, 1984, UNITED STATES EDITION A Different Sort of Sport BYLINE: DENNIS A. WILLIAMS with DIANNE H. McDONALD in New York, BARBARA BURGOWER in Dallas, TENLEY-ANN JACKSON in Los Angeles and MARGO C. POPE in Jacksonville SECTION: EDUCATION; Pg. 72. LENGTH: 1718 words

and a weak USA TODAY June 15, 1992, Monday, FINAL EDITION ALABAMA SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A LENGTH: 3863 words DATELINE: TUSCALOOSA

* Strong Keep dml (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I lexisnexis the phrase "national academic championship", and here are my results:

1. Washington academic team is tops

Tulsa World (Oklahoma), June 11, 2008 Wednesday, News; Pg. A5, 232 words, ANDREA EGER World Staff Writer

2. Middle school to compete nationally

Tulsa World (Oklahoma), May 29, 2008 Thursday, News; Pg. A8, 380 words, NORA FROESCHLE World Staff Writer

3. E-Town Quiz Team 2Nd At States, Goes To Nationals

Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania), May 7, 2008 Wednesday, B; Pg. 7, 401 words, Robyn Meadows

That gives us what, a thousand words of primary sources? And here's an excerpt from the first article. I don't know what you can do with the following, but if you can make an encyclopedic article out of it, props:

"The teams were asked to identify the designer of a pair of pants being modeled in a photo and were given the clue that the designer had recently died. Rogers correctly answered, 'Yves Saint Laurent.' 'The other kids were like, 'Huh?' And the other team didn't have a clue," McGinnis said. "Jordan's more into current events and that kind of stuff.'"

I'd like to reiterate my call to delete this article since it is impossible (believe me! I've been part of this community for years now!) to find any secondary scholarship, or any primary scholarship better than a few hometown newspapers noting that a team went there. (I also searched ebsco, which might actually contain, you know, some secondary scholarship (if only in the form of uninformed article-writers editorializing), and I found nothing with the phrase "National Academic Championship." Eventually I found an article on "Quiz Bowl" but it was essentially an interest piece about the coach of Byram Hill's team and the "superstar" he discovered in some kid named Nate Mattison. It's also bad enough that it describes quiz bowl as basically team Jeopardy. Everyday847 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might increase the timespan search for your references, just because there is little in the past two years doesn't mean there isn't more in previous years (also many print publications are not in online sources pre-1995). Granted, there are probably no books on the subject, and the individual articles may be weak, but a collection of lots of individual articles can easily be used to verify the various facts (format, it exists, so and so won, it was once on TV as Texaco Star National Academic Challenge (which I think alone provides sufficient notoriety, someone just needs to look up TV Guide back in 1990 or whenever)). Also, try looking for "Chip Beall" in your digging. dml (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Um .... could you elaborate on the exact nature of those articles. Just because they show up on a search does not make them secondary sources. We already have numerous other sources about teams winning the tournament that do not qualify as secondary. Just because they show up on a search does not make them secondary sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hyperlinks to the articles are possible as far as I know, they are pre-Internet, and they are copyrighted or I would include the text, but you can find them in Lexis-Nexis if you have access (most universities do). The Newsweek article is especially on point and detailed, describing the tournament, the others are basically winners of X, which I think is still valuable, but not as good. dml (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC). See also [38] for additional links, not optimal, but from reliable sources. dml (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The Newsweek article could be an article that would work, but without being able to see it, I can't comment on it. The others not only aren't secondary sources, but prompt a concern I have in doing searches of this nature. A few of the hits that came up had nothing to do with this tournament, and instead dealt with a national collegiate tournament for historically African-American schools sponsored by Honda. These were not among the sources that you mentioned. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure we are allowed to operate under assumed reliability. There are several editors, experts in national quizbowl, who have searched for reliable secondary sources to meet WP:RS. They have all consistently turned up negative. I welcome and encourage anyone to find neutral, secondary sources to support this article, but please do not simply assume that they must exist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. Gary Young[edit]

This is a wildly biased advertisement for a 'natural oils' salesman. I'd clean it up by rewriting to neutral and removing unverifiable facts, but as I tried, I couldn't find a single reliable source of information on him. Outside of his own advertising, it appears that only Quackwatch and similar have written about him at all. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ A little bit of quick research:

Bernadean University is an established diploma mill [39]
~~The Journal of Essential Oil Research does not appear to be a major peer reviewed journal~~, but someone with more experience in the area should check this. ~~It looks to me like a journal intended for amateurs to publish in, but I'm not sure~~. (see below)
The Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association appears to be a journal run by a group of people similar to the ones running those fish oil trials in schools out in England.
Naturopathy sounds like a pseudoscience, which is the discipline the subject of the article got his degree in.

EagleFalconn (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete looks like an advert/c.v - it isn't properly referenced from reliable 3rd party sources - I can't find evidence of notability. so delete unless substantially rewritten and formatted to show said notability and reliable 3rd party references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are three references which show him to be a quack, but the article is glowing. Something is wrong when the sources say one thing, and the article is 180 degrees in the other direction. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fraud, if not speedy as spam. I'm much more inclined to believe Quackwatch than this drivel. DarkAudit (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something is also suspicious when the author suddenly returns after a year's absence to post something so out-of-touch with the public record. Quackwatch has dozens of references to contradict virtually every point made in this article. DarkAudit (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've consulted Quackwatch, its a legitimate journal. However it limits its scope to the characterization and purification of essential oils, not uses. See [40], under 'Dubious Credentials.' For this reason, I say we push for speedy delete before the guy starts using his Wikipedia article as a sign of his credibility. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we could always remove the non-verifiable claims (most of the article) and focus on what does have sources. It'd make the article more critical, but verifiable. I guess that that point it becomes a question of notability. If he's important enough to have a rather long entry on Quackwatch, he might be enough of a nutjob to merit an article. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the article and the Quackwatch report so wildly contradictory (and the "rebuttal" is an attack on the people at Quackwatch), it's better to nuke this and start over. I don't see any way to reconcile these two versions of the tale. DarkAudit (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment EagleFalconn, that's what I thought, too, and I was genuinely surprised that I couldn't find any mainstream coverage of the dude to support my original plan, which was to stubbify with the verifiable info on the guy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment After reading further the Notability criteria, I don't think this guy fits the bill. His work itself is not notable, though killing his kid at birth might be (see Quackwatch). Being a nutjob isn't notable either, though. I stand by my earlier delete vote.EagleFalconn (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Facetious comment I think it is possible to be notable for being a nutjob- see Time Cube- but I don't think Young is well known even by that qualifer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of Lifelong Learning - CPD Courses[edit]

Non-notable per WP:N, unencyclopedic list of university courses. ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems to be using Wikipedia as WebHost to advertise future events -Hunting dog (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - wikipedia is not a course registry --T-rex 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not a course catalog nor a school website. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and take The Office of Lifelong Learning with it - also being used as an advertising platform. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, but NOT the Office of Lifelong Learning. Just rewrite the latter...--MacRusgail (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Kids 4[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; the fourth film was reported as a possibility way back in August 2005. No true progress toward production since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage in the last year or so that even suggests this film is going ahead. Steve ^{T • C} 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Robert Rodriguez has other sequels he wants to make, as well as Red Sonja (aka Barbarella aka the vehicle for his girlfriend). Alientraveller (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very crystal bally --T-rex 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources don't even confirm the film. Article could eventually be recreated when there is more information and confirmation of the film going ahead. (basically per crystal..) --Cameron * 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious crystal ballism 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a very powerful crystal ball at work here - i suspect this film may be a long time coming. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Windows[edit]

Delete advert for nn youtube content Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the YouTube links. Notable. It won the Sonfight. It is well known on Internet. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless RS can be found to support notability ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, winning Songfight alone is not enough. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonsense! 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this AfD - AfD nom collided with deletion of the article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arby 'n' The Chief[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arby 'n' The Chief

Delete utterly incomprehensible and nn series (blog based??) Mayalld (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Close only content of said article is the AfD tag. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like Afd nom collided with deletion of the article - it happens ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Williams[edit]

On the article's talk page, 91.78.177.99 (talk · contribs) writes: Does not meet any of the BLP criteria for Wikipedia. By this I think they mean the person doesn't meet WP:N, as there are no WP:BLP issues I can see. The subject seems to have mostly local fame, with just a dash of national, so I'm referring it here. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete seems to fail WP:N as well as WP:V. Additionally the article is written like a promotion. Admittedly I don't have access to the book mentioned in references but, suspect that he may have a poem or something in it as opposed to the book being about him. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Creative professionals. That "hot shots" quote apparently left out this part, "There are more of those than this Octopus can count."[41] Another up and coming poet with a promising future, but notability not established through body of work or significant recognition. WP:RS not coverage not found. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a nearly 3 year old article, it is rather weakly sourced. Artene50 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wolze[edit]

Young footballer without an appearance in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. He has youth caps, but consensus (e.g. here) is that these do not confer notability. Was originally prodded, but removed by an IP with the explanation "player is a member of current squad.. he will be play in this season..", which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Article has already been deleted once (via prod) for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding Daniel Brosinski to this AfD. Like Wolze, he is signed to a Bundesliga club and has youth caps, but has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for failing the notability criteria unless participation in the national youth team is seen as performance at the highest level and their appearances at that level are appropriately sourced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been consensus for a while that only apperances in the Olympics (U-23) or full international team are enough to confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My research backs up Number 57's assessment of the situation. Neither pass WP:Athlete, nor can I find evidence that either pass another qualification of WP:Bio. Nothing about either makes me want to ignore the rules to keep. They can always be recreated if/when one of them makes a professional appearance. Vickser (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel Brosinski because he have played 31 games in german third league. 217.93.10.130 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the league fully professional? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, absolutely fully professional, in season 07/08 Regionalliga Süd, now 3rd Liga 217.93.10.242 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you 100% certain or have a source on that? My understanding is that the new 3rd Liga is fully pro, but that the old regional leagues had some semi-professional teams. Vickser (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it's true.. the "old" Regionalliga was fully professional, all clubs were fully pro teams.. the new 3rd Liga is a single league.. that's the difference to the old two-tier system.. Bneidror (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you're wrong. This is the discussion we had at WP:WPF some time ago regarding the Regionalliga issue. --Angelo (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, fail WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already discussed the issue on WP:WPF, proving only the two higher tiers of German football are fully professional. 3rd Liga will start in 2008, and will be fully professional, but it is yet to start. --Angelo (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone participating here should be aware that a recent discussion on WP:BIO reaffirmed the consensus that failing to meet a subcriteria of WP:BIO does not instantly confer non-notability. Subcategories such as WP:ATHLETE are guidelines only and if a person can establish notability by neutral secondary sources per WP:N they should not be deleted by virtue of not meeting any criteria of WP:BIO. BigHairRef | Talk 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't understand your point. This is very very obviously true (George W Bush would fail WP:PORNBIO, for example) but I don't see its relevance to the case at hand. Are you saying that the subject of this article is notable for another reason? AndyJones (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G11). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTEC National Certificate for IT Practitioners[edit]

not notable enough for article on its own, can be listed in BTEC if required. Another editor's previous speedy attempt was removed by creator so I'm trying Afd. (Can't find sources for the noted famous participants either) Hunting dog (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual certificates aren't really notable. Claimed recipients without reliable 3rd party sourcing only serve to hurt the article. Also the one link serves simply to advertise a number of BTEC courses by a service provider. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No context, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Album (Alexis Korner)[edit]

Unnotable album that fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC. Had redirected to artist page, as noted by music guidelines, but wikistalker keeps reverting its redirection. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Not only is the artist notable, Eric Clapton and other bluesmen of note were guests on this live album. It certainly does need expansion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in discussions with the article creator on my talk page, may have does not mean that it does. No notability has actually been asserted and just because it has "big" artists does not mean it it automatically notable.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer for "needing work". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Main reason why the article is still around is because a certain cyberstalker reverts the page when it is turned into a redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Despite your apparent dislike for the creator, this should hardly be deleted. I think that the prolific career of the artist, very notable guest artists, and major label distribution (Universal Music) makes the album worth an article. It does need a bit more research and for sources to be listed, however I vote for keeping it and working on that, rather than flat-out deletion. At the risk of sounding wax-ish, much less worthy albums have articles... Addionne (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong dislike of the creator"? Where on earth did you get that idea? Seems like a nice enough fellow to me. Having a major label releasing it does not make it notable per WP:MUSIC (and for good reason), nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really a good reason to keep it. Yeah, there are other albums floating around out there that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, but doesn't mean they are any more appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that from the multiple people calling him a cyber stalker. Addionne (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't check the page history or links, I guess. The article was created by User:Technopat. User:Abtract, who reverted my redirecting the article to the artists page, is the one people are calling a cyber stalker and who has now been indef blocked. I haven't had any problem at all with the article creator, with whom I had a pleasant conversation on my talk page explaining why I redirected the article and offering some tips on dealing with notability and on working on articles in his user space if he doesn't have time to work on them immediately after creation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I quote from WP:MUSIC: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." I do not see substantial independent coverage here, and thus I think the article should be folded back into the article about its creators. Leave a redirect, if you like. RayAYang (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article seriously fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Greg Jones II 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I thought that the article was covered by the under construction template which I put up in the hope that other Wikipedia editors with greater access to references would contribute - surely the essence of Wikipedia. As has already been pointed out, the fact that the article needs work is not a reason for deletion - there certainly wouldn't be many articles on Wikipedia if that were the only criterion. Most of the above comments refer to the article failing to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, but surely the following is just as valid:

Wikipedia:Notability

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

* Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[7] for advice on where to look for sources. * Put the {{Notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{Notability}} tag. * If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{Expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[8] Otherwise, if deleting:[9]

Sorry for making this so long, but I think the spirit of the above justifies the article being kept. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Korner is an important figure in the early 60s British blues scene. The 1977 Rolling Stone Record Guide calls him the 'godfather of London's blues cult' and a factor in the Rolling Stones' formation. (This album isn't listed, as it wasn't out yet.) A number of these sidemen, such as Zoot Money, were also factors in the British scene, not just Clapton. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Separatism vs Racial Supremacy[edit]

Disputed WP:PROD. Subjectively it fails WP:SOAP for advocacy and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by its very nature. The current sources fail Wikipedia:Sources as questionable: one Geocities user page, one church and two self-described advocacy sites, one of which can be considered extremist. 9Nak (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I think the compare and contrast of these two terms is not relevant enough to warrant its own article, however I do think the valid points could be merged into the appropriate Supremacy and Segregation articles. Addionne (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV essay defending a practice. To the extent that this has any notability as a topic it should be covered in the appropriate articles. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to ~~Racial segregation~~ Separate but equal - could not be NPOV under this title --T-rex 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete - WP:SOAP indeed. I like the part about "scholars cannot agree" ... 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect. I doubt that this would ever be a search term, and articles about racial separatism or racial supremacy should not be redirected to an article about segregation in any event. Ironically, this article suggests that a separatist movement by rebels, and separation of the races by a government, would both be described as "racial separatism", and... trying not to laugh here... "it opposes racism". Yeah, separate but equal was very benevolent. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought separate but equal is probably a better redirect location --T-rex 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very, very clear that racial separatism and supremacy is two different set of beliefs! Other articles on wikipedia about this subject confirms this! The only reason for the creation of this page is to make research about the topic a little bit easier for wikipedia users.--Adi Schlebusch (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can contribute your two cents worth to those other articles. Thus, in Generally, "apples vs. oranges" articles aren't kept on Wikipedia because there are infinite pairs that one can compare and contrast. Thus, in the article racial supremacy, you can add something to the effect that "separation of the races or separatist movements are not synomnyms for racial supremacy". Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV article. I don't know if a redirect is overly helpful, I don't see this being a very popular search term. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the more redirects the better --T-rex 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had to go look up policy on this one; Wikipedia:Redirects#Neutrality_of_redirects sanctifies POV redirects, so even if this title is WP:SOAP (or offensive, even) it makes no difference. But my vote for redirect target is Racism, which already has material on the academic discourse, justifications and historical context. If there is a need to discuss the supposed difference between supremacy and segregation, then Racism is the place. 9Nak (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. I'll try to merge some of the information into the already existing articles. I understand that the information might be insufficient for a separate article, but it is certainly neccesary.--Adi Schlebusch (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search for consensus on where to point the redirect to moved to the talk page. 9Nak (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then; assuming there are no objections, redirecting to Racism and requesting AfD closure. 9Nak (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wu (region) (non-admin closure). Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

吴国[edit]

Definitely wrong project, not sure if it's notable for inclusion in a foreign project since I can't read this language. — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 13:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NONSENSE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has this been through the requisite two weeks on pages needing translation? Machine translation at yahoo babelfish suggests that it's trying to be about something that sounds article worthy:
The Wu occupant's individuality and the culture as well as other reasons, will form at heart in his/them with the other Chinese area posterity's different viewpoint and the standard of conduct. The original manuscript Wu's geographical position is south of Yangtze River, not including Anhui and Zhejiang's link Tai Lake basin region. In the language aspect, the closest pronunciation which and the grammar uses with the Wu occupant is the ancient times country (presently the Zhejiang area) descendant's dialect. The Wu dialect under Chinese influence, has not formed the writing.
though without a bit more context, I can't tell what that important something might be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (edit conflict) Patent nonsense does not include material not in English, so WP:NONSENSE does not apply here. A rudimentary machine translation (why was this not done?) reveals this is probably related to Wu (and I'd hazard a guess, superfluous). As I understand though, this is far from G1-able patent nonsense. WilliamH (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close - translation tag now placed. WP:AGF it's possible people are unaware of the translation tag (I only found it by accident and I'm sure others are in the same boat). Allow translation using whatever timeline is appropriate. However, I'd also suggest mentioning to the article's creator that their removal of the original CSD tag is inappropriate and perhaps point them in the correct direction for help, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Wu region. I redirected the article. I close the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubek15 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction.TravellingCari 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maroubra railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't delved into the notability precedents for proposed rail stations, and I'm not sure which of the listed stops already have rail stations that would make light rail redundant, but this should shed some light on the genesis of these articles. (I'll decline to post this same note on every station on this list at this time; are these bundle-able?) Townlake (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reconsider if they ever actually build it, which looks like would be 12 years from now, in 2020. This is analogous to films for which the funding has not yet been raised. And similarly for the others on the line. DGG (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also Leppington railway station, Sydney and Newington railway station, Sydney, which haven't been AfDed but where created together with this one and the rest, and are both "proposed stations", too. --Amalthea (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Leppington railway station, Sydney is actually a station that has been fully documented and confirmed. Newington railway station, Sydney, however, is pure crystal ball. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice to recreation if a decision is made to build the line and its stations. --Eastmain (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and the other speculative station articles. Is it too late to combine these into a single AfD nomination? Nick Dowling (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsford railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randwick railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Studios railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was planned, as part of the now-canned Anzac Line (which we do and should have an article on). It's now not though, and there's absolutely nothing this article could say that that article couldn't. The other "station" articles on that line need to be deleted too. Rebecca (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddington railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction. TravellingCari 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Square railway station, Sydney[edit]

States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really crystal ball territory. Who knows what the station will look like in 2020? Artene50 (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kråke[edit]

No notability asserted, Myspace band, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge tag[edit]

WP:MADEUP - or at the very least not-notable - a previous editor's speedy attempt was declined, so I'm trying Afd Hunting dog (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable game. Probably made up one day. Only source I can find refers to a different game. ascidian | talk-to-me 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Victor Lopes (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Reyk _YO! 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7, author blanked the page. GlassCobra 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinds of listeners[edit]

Reads like a school essay, not an encyclopedia article. WP:OR issues, at the very least. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --T-rex 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Interesting, although not for the reasons that the author might have intended... seems there are four kinds of listeners AND NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY LISTEN!!! Kind of like Goofus and Gallant only everyone is a Goofus!! Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Regan[edit]

Not notable independent of band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources for notability.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Lolfa[edit]

Y Lolfa appears to be little more than advertising for a printing company. There is little to substantiate anything notable about the company. Y Lolfa does not meet the primary criterion for a company specified in WP:COMPANY. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article now contains adequate sources to pass the notability test. There's likely to be a bounty of further material in Welsh if any speaker of the language wishes to dig it up. Gr1st (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references for notability.DGG (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publishes widely used Welsh courses, dictionaries; an imprint has a novel currently shortlisted for James Tait Black Prize. Yes, i know its product doesn't prove the notability of a company, but i believe it goes towards it. Rhydypennau (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUPA virus[edit]

Article is not verifiable, and is possible a hoax. A PROD was removed without comment. A google web search for "FUPA virus" turns up only one result -- this article. Without quotes gets spurious hits but nothing about a computer virus. F-Secure, and Trend Micro have never heard of it. McAfee hasn't heard of it, and the closest match is nofupat which isn't notable and doesn't match the description given for this virus. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Could be speedy, as creator has now blanked the page twice, though the first appears to have been to remove the prod tag and other edits made by others requesting improvements, as the following edit by the same user restored an earlier version of the article. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, the links go only to general virus information, nothing about this one. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh...delete Likely hoax. A short trip over to the urban dictionary with just the acronym FUPA will be instructive. Protonk (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rosenrot. I'll do only the redirect, though, since there isn't any sourced content and the merge of thsi and other songs requires some rearrangement of the target. Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te Quiero Puta![edit]

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rosenrot. As a matter of fact I'd suggest to do so for all songs from that album, since according to WP:MUSIC#Songs only Mann gegen Mann is notable enough for its own article (German national Charts #20, UK #59), and even that one has not enough noteworthy information to warrant a standalone article. --Amalthea (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rosenrot as a NN album track. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rosenrot. I'll do only the redirect, though, since there isn't any sourced content and the merge of this and other songs requires some rearrangement of the target. Tikiwont (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilf mir[edit]

Non-notable song, faills WP:MUSIC ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Te Quiero Puta!. --Amalthea (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above. ~MDD 46 96 00:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of the kiwi[edit]

I originally speedily deleted this page as a redundant page to Kiwi (disambiguation), but it was brought to my attention that it may not be quite as clear as that, so I undeleted it so as to put it through an AfD. To me, it seems that all of the entries on Eponyms of the kiwi that could legitimately be at Kiwi (disambiguation) per disambiguation guidelines (WP:D, MoS:DP), and the rest of the entries at Eponyms of the kiwi just happen to have the word "Kiwi" in them, and be about New Zealand. Those entries definitly don't need to be on Kiwi (disambiguation), since they are not easily confusable with the term "Kiwi" (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches}. As for the rest of the page, I was musing if it could be considered a set index article, but the entries don't appear to all be about the same thing, just all have "Kiwi" in the title. -- Natalya 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sensible collection of usages of word which is so much the symbol of NZ that it's the icon for the stub tag. (NOT Australia!) Many of them are indeed the sort of thing which would be deleted from Kiwi (disambiguation), and this article is an appropriate home for them as illustrating the wide use of the word. It might need to be renamed, as according to Eponym that word only applies to things/places named after a person, not after a species of bird! PamD (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, totally unnecessary article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary with the disambiguation page.-gadfium 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the notable stuff can be covered in the dab page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider how to title it and how to describe such articles. Its actually a useful collocation. DGG (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see why this all can't be on the dab page - people are far more likely to find that than this. --Helenalex (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kiwi (disambiguation). No real reason why everything on the page couldn't go there, usage note (now corrected) and all. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Usage note"? I could not have dreamed up a better example of complete disregard for the meaning of the first sentence of MoSDab:
  Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace.

That 23Kb page is devoted to describing all of the thing anticipably useful in the task of the non-articles called Dabs. The usage note is a perfect example of what it intends to prohibit: a Dab is a navigational device, far more like a Rdr than an article, and marked longer than a Dab only bcz

the Dab, a mechanism for getting users to any of 3 or 17 potential articles from one title, has to have its 3 or 17 entries on one page, while the mechanism for getting users to one article from 3 or 17 potential titles, has to have the (same) Rdr-markup on 3 or 17 Rdr pages;
each Rdr does its job without a user decision beyond typing, or following a lk to, the Rdr's title, whereas a user, having typed or clicked to a Dab entry has to choose among the links, and may need a few extra words (in the entries for the pages they aren't looking) to winnow the entries down to one.

Thus the usage note, no doubt valuable, belongs on a template transcluded into each of the relevant articles, not on a Dab, where

it presents clutter in the way of quick navigation, and
users who follow well maintained lks (bypassing the Rdr the original editor may appropriately have used, lest the editing bog down) straight to the page will never see it!

--Jerzy•t 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in some form or another, perhaps a merge or a rename is needed). As noted by DGG and PamD. Mathmo ^Talk 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong NoMergeWithDab; make a template out of the usage note; no opinion among delete, keep, and keep-but-rename.
I felt obliged not to unilaterally discard information from this formerly Dab-named page, and thus instead to move the page (where it can be weighed in this fashion), and then to build a proper Dab by mostly selecting from among its entries. The second sentence of MoSDab says
Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term.

The reason for the portion that starts "usually" is that Dabs are needed when the "base title" of the Dab (Kiwi/kiwi in this case) is ambiguous, and are most efficient in that necessary role when entries for articles that no one would reasonably consider so titling are excluded. (E.g. "Kiwi Omnicup, or "Kiwicup" are two reasonable titles for the same thing, but "Kiwi" is not a reasonable third possibility, and does not belong on the Kiwi Dab page. Such cases may be a argument for keeping the page under discussion.)
I don't claim there is a bright line: I prefer to have a lk to Judy Garland on the Dab page Judy, bcz she made 5 albums with "Judy" but not "Garland" in their titles: an Afghan student of English, or a punk rocker, might read a Web page that referred to her as just "Judy", and seek info there. Still, if what it took to make Judy Tenuta fans leave that dab alone is to exile Garland to her other home at Judy (given name), i'd consider the case gray enuf to live with it. One the other hand, no Dab page should be turned into an encyclopedic analog of an "If it's not Sco'ish, it's craaep" store, as would be done by a merge of the page under discussion with Kiwi (disambiguation).
--Jerzy•t 07:35 &07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Jerzy's comments, I know I mentioned it in the summary here, but what Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches says is that entries on a disambiguation page should only be there if they can legitimately be confused with the term being disambiguated, not just because they have the term in question in their title. -- Natalya 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the useful ones are already on the Kiwi (disambiguation) page. Also, Eponym is the wrong word to describe this list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (author request). Canley (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Schwarz (aviation inventor)/draft[edit]

David_Schwarz_(aviation_inventor)/draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

It's just a draft copy of an identical page.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes delete it, I created it while I was working on the rewrite which has since been done. I forgot to submit this for deletion, maybe even speedy it is Ok. I have saved the non-article notes I made.-84user (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jekyll and Hyde as an Exploration of Victorian Society[edit]

Jekyll_and_Hyde_as_an_Exploration_of_Victorian_Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete as blatant, uncited WP:OR - reads like an essay. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a essay and entirely OR, nothing to be salvaged. The same applies to the other articles that the originating editor has created. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for student essays. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Mom, I put my term paper on Wikipedia" is not an uncommon occurence. I'd give this one a C+ if I were grading it. Regardless, even the best essay is still original research. While one can cite to published sources that one might agree with, drawing your own conclusions isn't the basis for a Wikipedia article. Needless to say, this article is not the first to view The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde within the context of the Victorian society of Stevenson's day. The book has been examined for more than a century by scholars. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOR --T-rex 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:OR 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious OR. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody's homework. Just snowball this already. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of current Home and Away characters, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jefferies[edit]

Larry_Jefferies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

STRONG delete - very minor character. Not notable. Kogsquinge (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home and Away. Debate 木 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to List of current Home and Away characters. - Longhair\^talk 00:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the List of current Home and Away characters (but is he really a current character or is he a short term character used to establish his son's character?). I really do appreciate the devotion of the fans who create these articles as I would have been doing likewise when I was a teenager and an uber fan of Home & Away and Neighbours (if only Wikipedia had existed last century!) but I just don't see how these very minor characters can be considered notable and there's just not enough reliable sources to enable anyone to construct a proper article, which is why we have a two sentence article in this instance. Also, IMDB says this character has appeared in only nine articles between 28 March and 11 July 2008 and I think there is a significant and unresolvable, IMO, notability issue here. IMDb's Larry Jefferies's character filmography. Sarah 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longhair. That's the right target. Hobit (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nowlan[edit]

The character only appeared in two issues DCincarnate (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely looks like a supporting character, as per nom. Put him on the appropriate list of bit characters, and have done. RayAYang (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nisargadatta Maharaj[edit]

No sufficient citations, mainly self published works, no verification of notablity. Wikidās ॐ 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This university press book calls him "a highly regarded modern exponent of Advaitic realization." 445 googlebook hits without him as author. This book by bestselling author Wayne Dyer refers to him, so he is apparently quite well-known. This bestseller puts him on their list of "20 Famous Gurus and their Former Jobs" with a short bio.John Z (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a three page bio in italian.John Z (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As is obvious, I hardly looked at the article and its many refs before I did my own search.John Z (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable with only passing mentions as references. No notable activities sourced. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Highly notable. Why are Ism schism (talk · contribs) and Wikidas (talk · contribs) nominating so many articles for deletion? — goethean ॐ 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Also, if you look over my edit history you will find that I nominate article for deletion that are not notable and have no reliable sources. This article is not singled out among the others, it simply meets the standard of a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone is entitled to their own notion of notability. But it is better if at AfD, we use the notion, however we individually interpret it, explained in deletion policy and notability criteria. I also wonder whether people are clear on RS's too. Whether an article currently contains RS's or not is irrelevant to AfD. The question is whether they can be found. This article is one with so many - hundreds of google book hits - that the problem is picking out the most extensive and most academic ones, for use with the many probable RS's in the article already. It is usually thought to be good practice to do some googling on a topic before recommending it for AfD.John Z (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Dont see anything wrong with the article, has pretty good refs; - vineeth (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have to echo what John Z says here, the article clearly establishes notability through third party sources. The article could use more citations, though this isn't a reason for deletion. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Article could use cleanup, but per WP:BIO there seems to be sufficient reliable 3rd party sources available.TheRingess (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google book hits (RS) support notability. Needs cleanup though.Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep That Wikipedia indulges this time wasting nonsense suggests some of the Wikipedia administrative principles should be put up for deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable, though the article is awful - full of peacock and weasel prose ('most famous', 'worldwide recognition', 'reached self-awareness'), and is way longer than it needs to be. ~ priyanath talk 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This gentleman is just one of the thousands of baba's swami's etc. in India. Just because there was a book published citing him or a famous person referenced him/her doesn't mean that he is notable. To allow this now, is to potentially open a floodgate to many many such articles. And not to mention encourage narcissistic behaviour from the living. Also, that such an article is properly referenced is no reason to keep it (Please note most references are to one website, which is about itself). I can also imagine people indulging in linkexchanges (article exchanges?) on multiple sites to increase so-called notability. Thus said, I must hand it to him, that he has had influence beyond his lifetime, and that someone is taking the troule to maintain a website would count for something. Lastly, this note is being repeated verbatim elsewhere on a similar AfD ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there are thousands of notable traditional spiritual leaders in India, and there are facts that can be verified as is the case here, and evidence for multiple publications, we should include every one of them all. NOT PAPER means that a flood of articles will not pose any difficulties. There are indeed thousands of notable spiritual leaders of many different sorts. Or shall we only include articles in those subjects where only a few people are notable? It is of course going to be more difficult for the ones without English language publications or translations--fortunately these are present for his case. I accept Chirag Patnaik's judgment that he has had influence behind his lifetime. DGG (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page clearly shows notability and Nisargadatta Maharaj is referenced in dozens of independently published books as being one of the most influential spiritual teachers of the 20th Century. His name is practically a household word among students of Advaita Vedanta in the West. This deletion tag should have been removed days ago. The point about the administrative process being improved is certainly apt in light of the spree of deletion nominations that a small number of editors have recently been on. Ram.samartha (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Maxim_(talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor (ice hockey)[edit]

Non-notable amateur player who plays in the amateur English National Ice Hockey League so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professionally. Djsasso (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE, hasn't even been drated by an NHL team. Black ngold29 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" not notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's two levels below professional. If he ever plays in the Elite League, the article can be recreated. Patken4 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOR is not negotiable, and this is patent original research. May be userfied for further work. Sandstein 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of Radical Islam[edit]

Contested prod. Blatant violation of WP:OR - article even starts "This essay is an attempt...", no references, sources or notability asserted CultureDrone (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that references have been added by the author since this AfD nomination, however article still (imho) has issues over WP:OR and WP:N. CultureDrone (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete at least at present, this is too much of the nature of an opinion and analysis essay, not a wikipedia article.DGG (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also note that the author has acted in good faith to improve the article since its original nomination. CultureDrone (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read it, and in my judgment it remains a personal interpretation. A rather good essay actually, and quite possibly worth publishing--but not here. DGG (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete article is OR, SYN, both? Although a possibly encyclodic subject that may make some sense if included in part in a section on Sociology in religion, an article on Islam, or another place this article doesn't look to be up to scratch with the relevant policies and guidelines for encyclopedic inclusion as a stand alone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced portions to Islamism (which is where Radical Islam redirects to). No reason that the two editors can't contribute to an existing article. Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. A very distinctly POV one, at that. RayAYang (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I first saw this article patrolling new pages and it seems to me a good article, well referred, with a neutral POV in a controversial theme. As i noted the author's difficult with wiki, i tried to guide him in Wiki norms (mainly POV); he made few adjusts, but not enough. I worked in the article in format, wikilinks and categories, but not in the subject. I basically agree with David (DGG), but i think the article should be kept waiting for some contributions to improve it. I'd like to do it, but i don't think i have enough knowledge about the theme. Caiaffa (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV problems are atrocious. Just because it's educated and intelligent, doesn't prevent this article from having an extremely strong point of view on American foreign policy, history of the Mideast, etc. It would, to borrow a phrase from another guideline, "require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic." The author should try to get this published somewhere as an op-ed or extended comment on foreign policy, but not on Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support our troops[edit]

Support_our_troops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

DELETE Completely POV and includes weasel words like "some people believe". Unless it's completely rewritten in a proper tone I don't think this article should be kept. It's just another phrase of the day that will soon disappear.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardly an award-winner in its current form, but when an article needs rewriting, the answer is to rewrite it, not delete it. As for "phrase of the day", I'd say its historical significance is guaranteed, even if it falls into popular disuse... something along the lines of hearts and minds. (Hmm, that article sucks even more -- but again, the way to fix it is to rewrite it.)--Father Goose (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was inclined at first to view this as not much more than a dictionary definition, but I agree with Goose that this does show potential; the quote from Noam Chomsky is the beginning of a discussion of the phrase as "good propaganda", and one can find plenty of sources about the use of this rallying cry. A mess, sure, but not that much of a mess. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination states the article is capable of improvement through rewording to address POV issues. Deletion is not a first resort. Townlake (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was totally expecting to vote delete, but the article really isn't that bad. I do believe it is a notable slogan that wouldn't eaily be merged into any parent article. The article does appear to have references to justify it's notability. I didn't check to see if cleanup has been done since nom, but the only blatently objectional content was the opening weasel phrase, and it is at least attributed to a source. -Verdatum (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an unexpectedly decent short non-stub for a notable political term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no POV issues. Further the political/patriotic subtext, makes this go beyond a dictionary definition --T-rex 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An entire article for a term? Absolutely not. NSR77 ^T_C 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable except to a small vocal audience of a specific political belief, better rolled into the articles on militarism, fascism, US foreign policy, and/or military-industrial complex. SmashTheState (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an idontlikeit if I ever heard one. I think the phrase -- or rather, its use as a celebration of all the things you linked above -- is abhorrent, but given that it was omnipresent in the US for several years, it's certainly notable in Wikipedia terms. And we should document its association with all of those things (via Noam Chomsky's quote and others').--Father Goose (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet terms like "lol" and "jk" are ubiquitous, sometimes even spoken in person. Those don't have their own sub-articles, do they? NSR77 ^T_C 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "support our troops" survives, I plan to create articles for "Don't mourn, organize," and "An injury to one is an injury to all." SmashTheState (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but those are vastly more likely to be deleted. I'm not sure you yet understand the principle of WP:NPOV; Wikipedia isn't meant to be conservative or liberal (or anti-conservative or anti-liberal) -- our job is just to document what's out there.--Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed in criticism of wikipedia, there is an inherent bias in the status quo. Let me give you a practical example. Some time ago I stumbled across the Enemy of the People article. I have no love for Bolsheviks, but the article was very plainly created as an anti-communist tract. Historical uses of the term are briefly mentioned, but there are long, detailed, and cited sections on the Soviet use of the term. I decided to make the article a little less POV by mentioning the use of the term as part of the McCarthyist "Red Scare" era, and began a months-long struggle against various "patriots" who objected to what they saw as moral equivalency between their nation-state of choice and the Evil Empire. Even after finding citations, one of the patriots whined to a Wikipedia admin who quietly colluded with him on his user page, saying that if I persisted in editing the article, he'd "take administrative action" against me. The only reason I even realized this is because I happened to check the edit history of the person edit warring with me. This is far from the first time I have had to face a Wikipedia hierarchy consisting almost entirely of angry white privileged Amerikan males consumed by nerd-rage and OCD. You are quite correct that a phrase like "Don't mourn, organize," is orders of magnitude more likely to get deleted; not because it's less notable than "support our troops," but because, despite its use for close to a hundred years, it falls outside the status quo. And status quo is really what the wikinerds mean when they bang on about NPOV. SmashTheState (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even after finding citations,... he says. Except that--speaking slowly here--neither citation you provided says that "enemy of the people" was used commonly in America, in the McCarthy era or any other. First reference: [42], Hannity saying "enemy of the state." Not relevant (but could be to the other article as an example). Second reference: [43] a reference to Ayn Rand using the phrase once, ironically, in The Fountainhead. The fact that the user uses false references to make a point should be taken into consideration. A²Kafir (and...?) 02:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Russians never used the term "enemy of the people" either. What they used was probably something like "враг людей." It doesn't even use the same character set. I can find literally hundreds of uses of "enemy of the state" and "enemy of america" in the US. Their meaning is as close to "enemy of the people" as "враг людей" is. But of course, this really has nothing to do with logic or reason. It has to do with your patriotism and your personal offence at any kind of moral equivalency between Amerika and the USSR. And the Wikipedia admin will support you because Amerikan patriotism is the status quo, aka NPOV. And anyone who disagrees gets banhammered, forever and ever, amen. Which brings us back to this article. It will get preserved while a hundred other phrases and slogans of equal or greater notoriety do not, simply because Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male and middle class and Amerikan, and the status quo of male middle-class Amerikans is patriotic fervour. SmashTheState (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor makes my case for me; for him, NPOV is his opinion, because he's right, dammit! And the German placename spelling really helps, too. A²Kafir (and...?) 03:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, Khruschev disagrees with our friend: [44]. (Search for "enemy".) Of course, it is a translation, so our friend will say it isn't relevant. Y'all be the judge. I have to go see "Red Dawn" again. (Kidding. Actually, never seen it. Except for the scene of Soviet soldiers ambushed by teenagers outside a US national park. Kinda silly, so I flipped the channel again.) A²Kafir (and...?) 03:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmashTheState, I think you raise an interesting point. What is the Notability inclusion criteria for slogans? I'm of the opinion that a small article on a slogan is acceptable unless it can be fully and appropriately addressed in some parent article. So I did a search on your examples. "An injury to one..." on en.wikipedia.org yields as its first hit Labor slogans, which seems like a good place to fully address the topic. Whereas "Support our troops" on wikipedia yields no appropriate parent or umbrella article where the topic is currently addressed. So I say, since it is independently notable from verifiable sources, the solution is to give it an article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! (Seriously, I actually laughed out loud while posting this ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's so much more that can be written about this, with sources. Another aspect of "Support our troops" is its malleability; it's used by both conservatives and liberals. Support our troops-- bring them home from Iraq now! Support our troops while they're risking their lives in Iraq! The rest of the Chomsky quote is that slogans of this nature really don't mean anything, but to use it sounds very patriotic. At the same time, it's a shift in attitude from the Vietnam War era, when there were people that labelled American soliders as baby killers, and people that supported the war but didn't worry much about the returning veteran. Yes, that's a ton of generalizations; no, I have no intention of personally looking for sources; no, I don't care what you think. Suffice to say that it's more than just the phrase of the day, and has been for more than that for many years, and I think that there's enough notability demonstrated to keep the article and make it better. But either way, support our troops! Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Liberals AND Conservatives. There's hardly a distinction between the two in the United States. Try thinking outside your white privileged suburban home for once. It's not a shift in thinking. The support out troops motto was specifically created by the Pentagon to stop the legitimate feelings of anger towards soldiers that occurred in the past (Vietnam). Of course the public bought it completely and now most people believe that it was a grassroots movement by military families. There are many people who disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to be worldly, not USA-centric. If 'Support our troops' belongs here then surely so does every radical anti-american/imperialist motto. I'll go get started on that. Oh, and FUCK THE TROOPS.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Mandsford (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reply underscores the fact that the nomination of this article has been undertaken for deeply biased reasons. However, I wouldn't mind the creation of additional articles on any number of other famous propagandistic or anti-propagandistic slogans, provided they can be written about factually.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article will always have a tendency to be POV, but the Chompsky quote provides a succinct criticism of the support the troops mantra. As long as no one uses this as a WP:COATRACK, it should be fine. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your deliberate misspelling of Chomsky constitutes a personal attack. Please stop.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make fun of the basis for a functioning community here. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-Phonic Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete nn record company with no WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus, including the nominator, is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Energy Systems[edit]

Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this article is worth keeping. I would like to withdraw my nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added a {{rescue}} tag to the article. My initial search found one source that lead me to the prior names of this company, which tested its first electric car in 1966. I am not endorsing a Keep just yet, but will continue searching as this may be a notable company and a good faith effort by a new editor. Jim Miller (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a rewrite, as too much of it reads like marketing collateral. But it passes WP:RS and the company's innovations would give it a boost up on WP:CORP requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten this and provided some sources. The history of this company, and its 40 years of work in the area of fuel cells and electric vehicles, seem to clearly demonstrate notability. Jim Miller (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of manufacturing "the first mass produced electric car" seems to be a rather strong claim of notability, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIM cloning[edit]

This entire article is based upon original research and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs references, sure, but it seems to me to be a valid and notable topic. Even totally unreferenced articles like this (which I would not even deem "original research") provide a good basis for citation and improvement. --Canley (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with phone cloning which has little information on SIMs. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is very unorganized, but on a notable subject --T-rex 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Even if this were to suit merging once it's been copyedited, deletion is not the answer. WilliamH (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to phone cloning, there is nothing reliably referenced here to be merged. RFerreira (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RFerreira (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yong Chin Pak[edit]

Tagged for Notability & as unsourced for over a year, rm those &tagged other unsourced parts. Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep coaching at Pan-Ams etc., published a book (manual?) [45], NCTA Coach of the Year Award three times; marginally notable. Article is in very bad shape though. JJL (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of the National Collegiate TaeKwonDo Association from 1986 to 2007[46]. All statements sourced. jmcw (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ian Curtis . The straight keep arguments slightly are WP:GHITS arguments. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Curtis[edit]

Non-Notable person, all information is actually about her husband. She married, wrote a book and produced a film about Ian Curtis Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - The fact that she is the author of this book and has writing and producing credit for an award-winning film based on her book and the over 70,000 G-hits, I don't think you can legitimately delete this article based on notability. There is the possibility of merging it with Ian Curtis, though I think that's only a distant possibility.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little less than 70,000... and on the first page:

2x Interviews with her about her husband.

1x The article in question.

1x Peter Hook mentioning that she hated the film she was one of the producers on about her husband.

1x An imdb entry on her as producer of the film based on the the book she wrote about her husband.

1x Amazon entry for her book about her husband.

1x her bio on a fan site dedicated to her husband.

1x an article about her book about her husband being rereleased in connection to the film that she helped produce about her husband.

1x page about someone else entirely -> an American educator.

I still don't see any notabilty beyond who she married. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appears notable on her own; I came up with about 60,000 google hits, many individuals with markedly fewer have wikis, I don't see this scenario somehow being different because she's a widow. As an author and producer, and yes widow to a famous musician, I think she warrants her own article. With that said, this article does need to be elaborated upon. Brn141 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to merge it with Ian Curtis all the information is already there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - either to Ian Curtis as the notable person (whose article already includes the information about the film), to Touching from a Distance the article about the book (which again includes the relevant information), or to Control the movie apparently "based" on the book (which again has said relevant information). Ideally I'd say Keep the movie article (independent notability and verifiability), redirect Deborah Curtis to Ian Curtis and redirect Touching from a Distance as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as per unanimous consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UE Extremenya[edit]

Contested prod. This is a team that has played in the top league of an internationally (FIFA) recognized football (soccer) competition. However, it's a completely amateur competition in a country of about 70,000 people, which makes it the equivalent of the regional amateur competition in some medium sized city elsewhere. The team is listed in a number of statistical soccer pages, but has not received any individual attention, failing WP:NOTE completely, with only 114 distinct Google hits[47], and two Google News hits where they are only named in a list of teams.[48] Some Andorran teams have at least played a preliminary round of European football (or even solely the Intertoto Cup), making their claims to notability a bit stronger. This team however has no notability at all. Fram (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but I think that any football team that has played in a top division of a FIFA-affiliated country is article-worthy, regardless of how small the country is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nunber57 - a top division team in ANY country should be notable in my eyes. GiantSnowman 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? If said country is smaller than many cities, then why are the top division teams in such country notable, while regional teams with presumably a similar budget, audience, and history are not notable? A club in Andorra is similar, but a perfectly comparable club 20 km to the north or south (i.e. in France[49] or Spain) isn't? That seems quite arbitrary... Fram (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but one could also argue that the players playing for the likes of Andorra/Liechtenstein are only as good as the players playing for clubs at level 10 of the English pyramid, but they are notable because they play international football. Similarly, these clubs play at the top level in a FIFA and UEFA-affiliated country and therefore are more notable than similar sized clubs in the same position who happen to be from larger countries. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having played in the top Andorran division. matt91486 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the assessment that a team that plays in the top division of any FIFA recognized country counts as article worthy. While the arguments about the small population and professionalism of the league aren't without merit, playing at the top level of a FIFA and UEFA affiliated country makes them notable enough for me. Vickser (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who are we to decide if a league is noteworthy enough? You cannot delete a team simply because its league is deemed too small or unimportant. This team has played in the top flight of its respective countries league, hence it should be kept. Where do you drwa the line? What about Luxembourg? Malta? Cyprus? Albania? Who here is qualified to say that one league is acceptable but another in a slightly smaller/less noteworthy country isn't? - Eddie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.127.216 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aguing that the league as such is not noteworthy, I'm arguing that the team fails our global guideline WP:NOTE, which seems to be accepted for every possible subject but soccer teams as a basic minimum standard. This team has not received any serious attention from reliable sources (it is mentioned as one of the teams in the competition, or in a result, but no articles or even paragraphs about this team have been found in reliable independent sources). If the same could be said for Manchester Unied, I would suggest the deletion of that article as well. However, ManU has received some attention, just like most other top league teams, even in Luxemburg and so on. Being in the top league of a country with only two leagues is not really an achievement that is as such noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, perhaps one should look in the Andorran Catalan-language press thoroughly before you definitively say that there has never been any coverage about this team in any reliable source. Systemic bias issues exist on here. matt91486 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously (I later in that post stated that "no articles have been found", which is of course more correct), but local press is generally not accepted for other local teams or sportspeople (or every junior team or teenage talent would have an article based on the weekly newspapers from his town and so on). Fram (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what you mean by local press. Obviously local papers that aren't very acceptable, like community papers, wouldn't work, but we certainly would allow the New York Times and New York Post etc. to be sources for New York based sports teams, so I'm not sure why we would not extend equivalent treatment to Andorran football clubs. matt91486 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's hard to draw a strict line of course, but the professionalism and structure of e.g. the New York Times is not really comparable to that of a local Andorran newspaper. Anyay, this is a rather abstract discussion, as long as we dont have any sources to actually judge. Fram (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I'm not going to search too hard, but they are mentioned in those two UEFA summaries of the Andorran league for starters, [50] and [51], the second serves as a useful source for their promotion to the first division from the second. I know you found the same ones with your same search, but I'm just looking at them more positively, since the second is valid. I don't speak Catalan, so I can't do much with the Andorran based press. It's not terribly surprising that the league would have a smaller web presence, but the fact remains that the winners of the Andorran league get to go through qualification for the UEFA Cup. And the players at Step 10 of the English system do not. Therein lies the difference. matt91486 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I stated in my nomination that does who do play even one preliminary round of European football (even the intertoto cup, which is hardly receiving much interest) have a clearly stronger claim to notability. And we are indeed too lax with notability for professionals in some countries. But that is a different discussion. As for this one, it's a difference in standards (not better or worse, just more or less strict) where it may be hard to convince one another. Fram (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think you will find, incidentally, that Andorra's population is twice that of Liechtenstein, which has a club participating in UEFA Cup qualifying. ugen64 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So? I know that Andorra has clubs participating in the preliminary rounds of Uefa and Intertoto. This club hasn't done anything of the sort. We don't keep articles because other articles are notable, even though that it was everyone here is arguing. Fram (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, the Andorran league champion goes into the 1st qualifying round of the CL while the cup winner goes into the 1st qualifying round of the UEFA Cup. It's the same for every league ranked 25th (currently Slovakia) and lower, except Liechtenstein, I think because Vaduz participate in the Swiss league and are miles better than any club playing in the Liechtensteiner league. But anyway that's irrelevant, the point is that if a league is official enough that it has entrants in European competition, why aren't the clubs that have participated in that league themselves notable? Anyway I think you will find that last season, Andorra's European coefficient was identical to those of Albania and Northern Ireland (0.500 in each case), both of which are considered quite notable leagues if I recall correctly. ugen64 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep not to sound repetitive, but any top division side in any national league is notable BanRay 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Reunion (song)[edit]

Unremarkable song, no assertion of notability. No sources. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, funny song, but fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Short Music for Short People - nn song. should redirect to the album title --T-rex 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability, or actually have any info to warrant a separate article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Beckel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bob Beckel

This person does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. The only source is a blog article, and better sources have been requested at least as far back as December 2006, possibly longer. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:BIO as well as WP:V. Also without proper reliable sourcing sections of the article look to violate WP:BLP. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are a couple of arguments here that there does exist some measure of notability. While this may or may not be the case, there appears to be fairly strong opinion here that the weak notability being presented here is insufficient to pass inclusion criteria and thus there is sufficient consensus to delete. Shereth 22:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oink (water buffalo)[edit]

This animal has sadly suffered abuse, but it is not notable (enough for wikipedia) and is basically an article about a persons pet. The article is subject to repeated vandalism by the animals owner and continues to be reverted. It has a number of references, but mostly to local newspapers and tabloids. Carbonrodney (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Carbonrodney (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify; the article is about an animal that is very well known locally and now nationally. The vandalism is not being made by the animals owner - it is the animals previous owner who sold the animal and land for £7,000 now he is back claiming he didn't sell the land and Oink (even though the land registry says otherwise and his solicitors made an attempt at getting back the land over a year ago and failed, so I'm told). It is clear that the previous owner is after either the money that was raised to protect the animal or he is just seeking the attention that the press has brought. Finally, I would like to point out that this is a national story, not just local and that it featured on GMTV news - which isn't local. That said, can you please REMOVE THE ARTICLE as per my first request 2 days ago as I don't want rumours spreading that are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As speedy deletion was declined, we need to go through this process, which could take up to five days. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speedy deleted this article as a G3 (vandalism), seeing as it was a blanked article. I should have looked further back in the history, as I did not note this AFD or the fact that the vandalism tag was itself vandalism, albiet well intentioned. I've restored the article and am un-closing this debate, seeing as how it was my error that resulted in its closure. I also note that the article does not appear to conform to any of the Speedy Deletion criteria. This includes author request, as additional contributions have been made since the author created the article. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not yet ready to express a keep or delete opinion on this, though I would guess at this point I am leaning towards weak delete, if only that the article may be more trouble than it's worth, a net minus for the project by it's inclusion. But I really have no policy based reasons for leaning towards deletion.

In summary, we have a situation that appears to be getting at least minor national airplay in the UK. So the situation appears to me to satisfy notability concerns, although it's marginal notability. We have real life legal situations around the issue, including apparently at least one lawsuit. We have one of the participants in the situation repeatedly editing the page with his POV of the situation. We have on the other side of things, the article's creator, who is totally frustrated by the POV edits, to the point where he just wants the article gone. But there have been too many other people editing the article to allow for G7 speedy.

So, what happens next? It IMHO meets notability requirements, but I have to wonder just how valuable the page is to the encyclopedia, and whether it's valuable enough to keep when it's obvious that it will continue to be a magnet for people from both sides of the ral life legal fights. At the moment then, consider me at weak delete, but I could be swayed either way by good arguments for or against deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't believe this article has been undeleted. To quote TaxasAndroid "But there have been too many other people editing the article to allow for G7 speedy" - only one other person (Green Tentacle) has edited this article besides myself - all others were vandalising the page or undoing the vandalism. It says in the guidelines that the original author can blank the page and it will be considered for deletion - this is why I blanked it. I won't go into too much detail about this but yes there is a legal battle going on over the land and the police are currently looking for "Diggly". I suggest you remove the article to avoid future vandalism by Diggly. If you need more evidence, then please email me, don't discuss it here. 85.189.3.145 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was restore because we have rules on the project for how things are done, and deletion of articles is one of the more carefully handled situations. There are strict and narrow rules for when an article can be speedy deleted, and the article simply does not meet them. The article was restored by the admin who deleted it this morning when I pointed out to him that he had mis-understood the situation. The admin has admitted his mistake, and that he should not have deleted it in the first place. As for the G7 author deletion, as soon as there are edits by other people, even one other person, that avenue is simply no longer valid. Finally, as for Diggly's continued POV edits, I hesitate to call them vandalism, but they are indeed totally inappropriate. I was considering locking down the page already, and have now done so. This will prevent the continure POV edits from Diggly, and the abuse of the speedy deletion tags by Webbo2005. When the AFD is complete, the article will either be gone, or unlocked for resumed editing. Until then, there's really no point in allowing either side in this to continue to disrupt the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; "G7: Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Please read the policy carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved party, I'd say that other parties have added "substantial content". shoy (reactions) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done a very good job of reviewing the history otherwise you would know to say "party" not "parties" as only 2 people have added any content to this page; myself and Green Tentacle. All other edits were either by vandals or people un-doing vandalism. As I have mentioned before, Green Tentacle only re-worded much of what I had written - which brings me back to question why it wasn't deleted under G7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try one more time to explain this. It all boils down to how much additional editing, besides the article's original creator, does it take before G7 is invlaid. And the answer is, very, very little. Just about any edits by anyone else. Green Tentacle's edits are enough. G7 allows you to request deletion of your own work, but not that of others. And parts of the article were not your work. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 needs to be re-written to be more clearer then because that's not how it reads. I think that an article creator should be able to delete their own articles (in certain circumstances, such as this one as Oink is a local legend to me personally), regardless of who has since chipped in with formatting improvements and acts of vandalism. That is my opinion please do not take it to heart. Webbo2005 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent) Bringing up a new wrinkle of this AFD vs G7 speedy situation for Webbo2005... In the longer term, for the sake of Webbo2005's desire to have the article gone and stay gone, an AFD will be much, much more effective. With a G7 speedy, there's nothing really to prevent someone else from recreating the article either from scratch or from mirrors across the net. And there would be nothing wrong with this. With a notability AFD result, which certainly appears to be where this is headed, any recreation would have the force of the project's policies against it unless a recreation could show a signifigant increase in notability. I personally mildly disagree that it is not notable, but I'm in the minority here, and expressed a weak delete anyway above. Once this AFD is over in 4 days or so, the article will likely be deleted with much more weight in place against it's recreation. And as for those 4 days, the article is protected, so Diggly will not be editing it in the mean-time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mindless HumInt story. A brief article or two about an otherwise non-notable animal aren't enough; and PETA involvement is thoroughly irrelevant, gien they bandwagon every single animal story for the publicity. ThuranX (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the animal is not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Things appear in the national news all the time, they have to fill the time with something and when it is a quite day this kind of stuff has its 15 mins. But an encyclopedia article is forever and so interest that is fleeting is not grounds for an article IMO. If he's still in the news in a years time, I'll change my mind but for now, we need to delete. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit borderline. Similar to User:TexasAndroid, I would say to delete it if it is causing trouble, and keep if things calm down. Of course, if it gets very famous then I guess we should keep it anyway; it does have a fair bit of news coverage so far. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - subject of multiple articles in major newspapers. "Interest is fleeting" and "humint" are not valid arguments for deletion. - Merzbow (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, we have an article from BBC news and another from the Telegraph, and yet another from the Guardian - all dedicated to the subject. If this is deleted, it's going to DRV for sure. - Merzbow (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with this, I still think it should be deleted under vandalism. Look guys, stop arguing over what is the best way to delete this article its just ridiculous. At the end of the day, I put the article online in good faith - it was since edited by another person and vandalised by a few others (G7 controversially out of the window). I now want it removed because every time I restore it back to its non-vandalised state, Diggly comes along and puts his slander/rubbish back in. I don't want to have to check every day for vandalism - so I'd rather you just removed it; please, for the last time please. Why do I get the feeling it is not being deleted purely for people to have a debate over nothing? Webbo2005 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they are vandalised. If we did that, all our politician pages would be gone for a starter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but you can't compare a politician to a water buffalo. I think in cases such as Oink's there should be exceptions. Webbo2005 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends entirely on the politician! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-Boom, Tshhh! Webbo2005 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:NOT#NEWS animal known only for one newsworthy incident and with no long-term significance. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TimVickers, an animal BLP1E that fails NOT:NEWS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until someone gets a book published about him, or he shows up on VH1's I love the 00s or something else to establish this as anything beyond a human interest story on a slow news day. -Verdatum (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a biography of a creature known primarily for one event. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not for any other reason than to refute the complete absurdity of trying to apply BLP1E to an animal. This thing should be dealt with by process, and that should start with ANI regarding the vandal. If there was any reason to delete, it would be WP:NOTNEWS, but I fail to see how any harm can come to the subject as a result of the article. Jim Miller (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was applying NOTNEWS as a way of assessing notability and the long-term viability of this article as an encyclopedic subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my reference to BLP1E was made fairly tongue in cheek, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. There have been a fair number of cases in the news here of animal abuse (boiling water, microwave etc) and those obviously fail NOT:NEWS, and if they didn't then it would be the incident that is notable, not the animal. In this case, the argument is being made that the animal *is* notable... and I disagree. It is notable because of it's involvement in a case of animal abuse, and outside that case, there's no notability. The essence of BLP1E seems to apply by analogy. Now, JimMillerJr, you're !voting "keep" to make a WP:POINT about the application of BLP1E to an animal, not because you think the animal is notable? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that does read more harshly than I meant it. Reiterate my keep as the article passes WP:V and WP:NOTE through significant coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. Jim Miller (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Carnildo (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This will not be remembered even one year from now, and is no different from the 100s of other human interest stories that clog up our news programmes. Steve ^{T • C} 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck my vote after a re-read of the notability guideline; I thought I remembered a line in it that recommended against the inclusion of articles that only demonstrated notability for a short period. Obviously, the exact opposite is the case! However, this doesn't preclude a future !vote from me under another guideline. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, this does meet the general notability criterion. Second, it doesn't fail ONEEVENT for two reasons a/that applies only to people, and b/it isn't one event---the animal is notable both for his general mode of behavior and also for the abuse he has received. Third, it doesn't fail NOT NEWS for although isolated abuse may fall under that, the general for what co behavior of the animal is the sort that would be a matter of a feature story, not a newspaper story. Fourth, whether it will be remembered a year from now is not the test--the question is whether it is notable now. So that basically gets us down to IDONTLIKEIT. Myself, I don't like it either, but it meets the rules. There are lot's of things I don't like but meet the rules and are present in Wikipedia, but I don't go around to make a POINT about the inadequacy of the rules by trying to remove them. There's one more possibiliity then: IAR-- but IAR does not hold unless the need to do something to improve the encyclopedia is essentially obvious to all Wikipedia people here of good faith, and I don't think that's the case. So there we are. It's inevitable that something as complicated as our inclusion rules would lead to this sort of result, for all large organisations and projects have their contradictions. We might as well get used to it. DGG (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a buffalo has made some unusual noises, I don't see this is a criteria for including the animal in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't count that as a second source of notability and see this a a single claim for notability. Imagine the mess we would have if every talking dog could have an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a water buffalo that makes strange noises - that is a minor detail about this particular buffalo. The article is about someone's pet who was subject to abuse and about the money that was raised as a result (and how to raise more money for the cause). I'm sorry but the article is interesting only because we are all people and we are all interested to some extent in these poor farmer and cute animal gets raw deal to thugs and is now consoled with other peoples' money trash stories. While this story belongs in a tabloid, it does not in Wikipedia. --Carbonrodney (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, can you elaborate upon the following statement?:

Third, it doesn't fail NOT NEWS for although isolated abuse may fall under that, the general for what co behavior of the animal is the sort that would be a matter of a feature story, not a newspaper story.

I must admit, I simply don't understand what you mean ("the general for what co behavior of the animal"). Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, it does seem to have come out a little confused: I meant that the general behavior of the animal and the interest taken in that is one point of notability, aside from the subsequent animal abuse---it is meant to explain why this is different from ordinary accounts of abuse of an animal. DGG (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. As I will argue below, I don't think the coverage sufficiently gets past the "short burst of news reports" stage. Steve ^{T • C} 06:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sensations of lasting popularity, and there are 15 minutes of fame, quickly forgotten, and unworthy of any historical, to say nothing of encyclopedic, mention. This animal clearly falls into the latter. RayAYang (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT#NEWS, NPOV Sceptre ^(talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. To quote: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." At the very least, it isn't notable yet, as coverage from significant sources has only been present between July 4 and July 12. This doesn't cross the threshold of being more than a "short burst" for me. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 06:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Soul2Soul Tour and Soul2Soul II Tour, delete Live Your Voice Tour.

This was a bit confusing at first glance, so here's the play-by-play: During the first run of this discussion, the three 'also-nominated' articles below were condensed and improved into Soul2Soul Tour and Soul2Soul II Tour, and both are now referenced with inline citations that establish notability. Live Your Voice Tour was not improved or referenced. There is no claim or proof of notability and no verifiable sources; it is little more than a setlist and a list of dates. It does not merit its own article. KrakatoaKatie 04:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live Your Voice Tour[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same lack of notable information. Likewise, most of the content contained within is riddled with POV issues and useless quotes and filler:

Note to closing admin see discussion below, I'm in the process of doing a major "save" to Soul2Soul II Tour 2006, please don't close this out from under me. Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note to closing admin I have done "saves" of both Soul2Soul II Tour 2006 and Soul2Soul Tour. Please don't nuke these articles! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tour itself is not notable, content is nothing more than tour dates and setlist, so WP:IINFO applies Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. Tigertron (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) !vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on all three Soul2Soul tour articles. These were very notable joint tours between McGraw and Hill. Soul2Soul II Tour 2006, for example, was not the usual two acts following one another, but a carefully thought out presentation with a dramatic theme running through each segment of the show to a final conclusion. It was also the second-biggest grossing tour of the year, and the top-grossing country tour. All of these factors make this, and the other Soul2Soul tours, quite notable. There is no logic to the notion that every album and every single can get an article, and tours cannot, when more people see the tours and the artists make more money from the tours. You are correct that the article needs better references, but that is a reason to tag it, not delete it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Rwiggum. LotLE×talk 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES#Music. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC) WP:MUSIC needs to address this issue more specifically though. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rwiggum Sceptre ^(talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rwiggum has just decided to make every tour article I made for deletion, I'm reporting vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSzeliga89 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rwiggum is not a vandal, and I have undone your very inappropriate marking of his user page. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have complete empathy with the position you find yourself in. You have spent many, many hours working on these articles, some of which have been in existence for over two years without a question being raised as to their legitimacy. And now all of a sudden they are all being subjected to a mass deletion purge. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my page, Wasted Time, I appreciate it. It isn't that I'm simply trying to purge wikipedia of all tour pages; Rather, I'm just calling into question whether or not these articles are notable enough to exist. That's the reason why these AfD proceedings exist, so that editors can deliberate and come to a concensus on an outcome. And I don't just want this information gone from Wikipedia; I just think that it would be more suited for a shorter section on the artist pages. There just isn't enough substantive content to justify it's own article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the information on the artist's page won't work very well for the Soul2Soul tours, where it would have to be duplicated on both Tim McGraw and Faith Hill. If I do some work on Soul2Soul II Tour 2006 (the one I am most familiar with) over the next day or two, to improve its sourcing, establish its notability in both commercial and artistic terms, and reduce its fannish content, are you willing to look at the result and re-evaluate your position on it? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds reasonable to me. Also, I think it might be a better idea to combine all three pages into one singular Soul2Soul tour page. You can have a separate section for each year, with information contained within. I'd be willing to help you streamline it if you would like. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've thought about that, but I'd need to do some research into how similar they were in approach and theme (2006 is the only one I saw). I also want to do some research into husband-and-wife tours in general — many have struggled artistically or commercially, such as Cher and Gregg Allman or Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony. Part of the notability of the Soul2Soul tours is how well this h-and-w pairing has done compared to the others. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia lists tours now? Seriously. Perhaps extraordinarily exceptional, ground breaking tours, yes. But there is nothing to suggest that this tour was notable. Indeed, the article was written before the tour happened and since then hasn't gained any claim to notoriety. WP:CRYSTAL would have applied, but since then it's quite simply non notable, clearly. Not a single reference, just a list of places he was planning to go to and what he was going to do. Looks like advertising to me. Myrrideon (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment. I've done a lot of work today on Soul2Soul II Tour 2006. There's still more to go before it becomes GA-quality, but now the tenses are correct, some of the fannish content is gone, and there's much, much more citing and references than before. And the cites are largely to high-quality WP:RS, such as the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, CMT, Billboard, and the like. Most importantly, I've rewritten and cited the lead section to establish the tour's notability. If you look at it, you will see that it (a) establishes that this tour was a new artistic work, in that it combined the music of two artists with different characteristics into a whole, brought together by an elaborate stage design and a thematic development of the duet performances during the show; (b) establishes that this tour was a huge commercial success, becoming the top-grossing country music tour of all time, and among the top three and top five tour of any genre both in North America and worldwide for 2006; and (c) establishes that the tour won a top industry award, Pollstar's Major Tour of the Year Award for 2006. I claim that this conclusively demonstrates the notability of Soul2Soul II Tour 2006, and that this article does not belong in AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, the article really looks pretty good. I'm going to go ahead and change by vote to Keep, but ONLY for Soul2Soul II Tour 2006. However, I still think it would be best if all three articles were merged into a singular Soul2Soul tour article with sections for each year. But as it stands right now, I'd say that you did a great job. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge in Soul2Soul 2007, because although some sources consider it a separate tour and some the same tour, I think it's akin to how the rebranded Zooropa and Zoomerang were part of Zoo TV Tour and how Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour go together. But I believe the original Soul2Soul Tour was a completely different artistic endeavor, unrelated except by name, and should have a separate article. Haven't done much research on that yet, so give me a stay of execution on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another New Comment. I've now done a lot of work on Soul2Soul Tour. There's still more to go before it becomes GA-like quality, but now some of the fannish content is gone, and there's much, much more citing and references. And the cites are largely to high-quality third-party WP:RS, such as the Rolling Stone, CMT, Billboard, Pollstar, and the like. I'm also convinced it does not belong with the Soul2Soul II Tour article, because other than the reuse of the name they have mostly different characteristics about what makes them compelling. Most importantly, I've rewritten and cited the lead section to establish this tour's notability. If you look at it, you will see that it (a) establishes that this tour was a compelling artistic matching, in that it took Hill's pop and techno style and paired it with McGraw's traditional country style, exemplifying a duality that was very much talked about in country music at the time; (b) establishes that this tour was a big commercial success, being among the top five grossing tours of any genre in North America that year and the top country tour that year; and (c) establishes that the tour won Pollstar's Most Creative Tour Package Award for 2000, which is Pollstar's second most important award. I claim that this conclusively demonstrates the notability of Soul2Soul Tour, and that this article does not belong in AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I do believe that Soul2Soul II Tour should stay, I still don't think that Soul2Soul Tour has enough content to justify it's remaining. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and amount of content are two different qualities. If two singers of different musical styles came together and recorded a single, and it was the leading single on the country charts for the year, and was the fifth leading single on the pop charts for the year, and won one of the major Grammy Awards, would you not consider that single notable enough for an article? This is the touring equivalent of that. If it's notable but doesn't have enough content for a good article, that's what stub tags or expand tags are for. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only Live Your Voice Tour. It does not make claims establishing it as a notable tour. The other articles however, currently do establish notability in ranking as highest grossing country music tours of all time and other notable statistics. Further, the articles appear well sourced through independent resources. Soul2Soul 2007 currently redirects to Soul2Soul II Tour 2006 which appears to be perfectly appropriate. The articles also contain enough content as to be inapropriate to merge with an album article, which I usually prefer to see as the solution for articles on single headliner tours. -Verdatum (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete only Live Your Voice tour, the Soul2Soul tours per above. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Soul2Soul tours per the praiseworthy efforts of Wasted Time R. --Bardin (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ Keep, weak keep for Live Your Voice Tour - On further inspection, some good work has been done. Notability is good. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Il Lo[edit]

New non notable style, no cites just primary refs, advert before cleaned up Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded in 1994 and only 2 instructors in 10 dojo [52] : not notable. jmcw (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neo-art. JJL (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-America[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary (or an atlas). The Britannica entry cited is itself only a short definition. This article is a definition plus OR plus another definition of 'Anglo-American' Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anglo-America refers to the United States and Canada since it was once British territory, compared to Latin-America which refers to Mexico, Central America, and South America since it was once Spanish and Portuguese territory. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Anglo-American is a term, this is not really an entity that is in any sort of common usage. At best redirect to Anglosphere. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki over to the Wiktionary. This is essentially the U.S.A. and Canada (but not Quebec, pay attention!), only with the addition of some former British colonies in the West Indies like the Bahamas. So, does this mean that Quebec is part of "Latin America", the way the French Guiana would be? How about Nebraska and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase area that was never British territory? Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need to clarify my previous statement. The United States' and Canada's culture was influenced by the British while Latin America has Spanish and Portuguese influences. Language is too important since the US and Canada mainly speak English while Brazil speaks Portuguese and the rest of Latin America speaks Spanish. Since you mention Quebec, after the French and Indian War, the British won Quebec from the French which means that it became a British territory. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—it's a stub for a geographic region. Spacepotato (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a reasonable and verifiable notion, with plenty of encyclopedic content: Google Books show quite a few ( >1,000 ! ) hits, hence it is very expandable. `'Míkka>t 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a bit ironic that you should show a series of links that refer to varied concepts -- 'WASP America' (that is, a part of the population of the USA), literature in England and America, a UK-US political alliance, a geographical area including the USA and Canada, and possibly more. If Wikipedia were a dictionary we would presumably include all these definitions. Are you really suggesting that we have an article including all of this?. And if we limit it to the USA and Canada, we already have an article on each of these, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 July 2008
- Comment It's not restricted just to the US and Canada, Anglo-America includes the English speaking Caribe and North/Central/South America. JC 07:30, 18 July 2008 (PST)
  - Comment Which just shows that it is an amorphous term, as the Britannica definition and the geography books I've looked at on the web don't include anything except the US and Canada. Doug Weller (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and which is just shows that a "mere dicdef" won't do: detailed explanations are required to explain people what this term means, who uses it, in which circumstances and time frame. Since there is at least a dozen of books with "Ango-America" in their titles, surely we can scramble a section or two. `'Míkka >t 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then you got it yourself, the cultural region is well sourced, the problem to include the remaining English speaking Americas is the lack of web sources, but the term itself includes the current British dependencies. There is a similar problem with Latin America which may or not include the French speaking territories. JC 08:32, 18 July 2008 (PST)
Strong Keep It is a well known cultural region compared to Latin America, this is like you consider to delete Latin America. JC 22:45, 17 July 2008 (PST)
Strong Keep The term Anglo America is commonly and widely used to distinguish the United States and Canada from Latin America. Keraunos (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yes, that is true. It would be a vital entry in a dictionary. I am not disagreeing with that. It means both a geographical and cultural area and Britannica limits it to the USA and Canada (but not including French-Speaking Canada) whereas some editors above want it to include many other places. At one point the article included 14 independent countries and a number of other dependencies, etc. plus 50 cities, 10 urban areas, 10 metropolitan areas (all in tables), photographs of cities, a bit table of racial groups, sections on transportation, English place names, notable Anglo-Americans, languages, etc. As an article, it looks to me like a content fork of North America. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, if anything, it would be more accurate to say it is a possible content fork of Northern America. Northern America is actually a better term because then you don't have any confusion regarding whether Quebec is included or not, and Greenland is included as well (I found a couple of articles which I referenced to in the Greenland article that said that the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark in 1946, but Denmark refused to sell. If the United States had successfully purchased Greenland, then Greenland would now be part of Anglo-America.). However, the term Anglo-America is much more commonly used than Northern America. Older scholars tend to use Anglo-America and younger scholars tend to use Northern America, although they include somewhat different areas. Probably in a couple of decades, Northern America will replace Anglo-America. Keraunos (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mott (live oak)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

absolutely non notable article, due to the fact that it is a neologism not in common or even colloquial use. It should be deleted since it is a dictionary definition and cannot be expanded into a real article. It is a non-notable Bushism. Nominated once before with the result of Transwiki, but the entry was deleted on Wiktionary and for some odd reason not deleted from Wikipedia. ^MY♥_INchile 06:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is borderline G6 (routine maintenance includes cleanup after a transwiki). Note that the definition appears in wikt:mott, which is probably sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially fit for a dictionary at most, not an encyclopedia.--Boffob (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkbymoorside F.C.[edit]

Articles was PROD'ed with the rationale Club has never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system or in the FA Cup or FA Vase, the general criteria for club notability as per the WP:FOOTBALL project, then PROD2'ed, but then, as per the usual, the PROD was removed by an IP with no explanation. Judging from the pictures on the club's official website their ground does not have floodlights and therefore, contrary to what the article claims, the club is not in fact eligible to enter the Cup or Vase ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Without passing comment on the eligibility of the article, the website features photos of the ground which contain things which look like floodlights to me.~~ Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good look through and I can't see any. If you have a look at the pictures on this page they clearly play on what appears to be little more than a public park pitch, without even a railed off pitch let alone floodlighting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The first one on this page has distinctly floodlight-shaped things.~~ Err, yes, pointed at what looks like a five-a-side pitch next to the park itself. So ignore me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the standard of their ground, though, the fact is that they have not entered either the Cup or Vase for the coming season (see here and here for the lists of clubs accepted into each competition) and play in a level 11 league, below the normally accepted cut-off point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the IP that deprodded it a good dose of WP:TROUT. Next time I see an article deprodded anonymously I think I'm going to scream. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long way from demonstrating sufficient notability. - fchd (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Israeli Nerve Gas Attacks[edit]

This article was identified by RGTraynor as potentially specious, and there followed a discussion of this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#2001_Israeli_Nerve_Gas_Attacks.

The article should be deleted. It is untrue.

The article relies on a number of sources which themselves are indecisive or which contradict the statements they are supposedly supporting. The first source cited is a report by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights from February 2001. The report has a headline that "Israeli occupation forces use a new gas with unusually severe symptoms". However, in the body of the report, the gas is identified repeatedly as "tear gas". While noting that the symptoms of the tear gas seemed particularly severe, the report says, "The hospital lacked the technical means to identify the gas used. PCHR will refer to international experts on this subject." There is no follow-up to this report indicating that the gas was anything other than CS, the standard tear gas used by Israeli forces.

The lead of the article states that "The symptoms reported match those of tabun, a known anticholinesterase poison belonging to a family of organophosphate nerve poisons". However, the source cited for this (http://emedicine.com/emerg/topic899.htm), contradicts this claim. According to emedicine, tabun is a gas developed by the Germans in World War II, and "the only confirmed wartime use of nerve agents was during the 1981-1987 Iran-Iraq War, where tabun and sarin were used by Iraq in an effort to gain advantage over Iran." None of the symptoms cited in the article - attractive fragrance, delayed reaction, spasms, paralysis - are symptoms of tabun poisoning. Rather, emedicine identifies the symptoms as "conjunctival injection and pupillary constriction," respiratory depression, and apnea. Onset of symptoms from the inhaled poison is almost immediate (the article says symptoms were delayed), and it is generally fatal (no fatalities are mentioned in the article).

The article relies also on statements by "Dr. Helen Bruzau - Medecins Sans Frontieres" who is quoted in a film. However, a search of the Medecins Sans Frontieres website - which contains a comprehensive archive of all the reports and press releases issued by the organization - reveals no reference to the alleged gas attacks. I have sent a query to MSF to verify if a Dr. Helen Bruzau actually worked for the organization. If so, perhaps she can be contacted and can shed some light on the source of the story.

Other sources cited in the article rely on the same quotes from Dr. Bruzau, and repeat contentions of symptoms that are contrary to those cited in the emedicine article. They contain a number of internal contradictions which raise doubts about their reliability. One of the sources notes that it is uncertain whether the doctor's name is Bruzau or Brisco.

There is no reference to the use of poison gas in the archives of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Times of London. It seems unlikely to me that a story of this magnitude would be ignored by the entire western media.

The "Background" section of the article relies on two websites of questionable authenticity. Neither of these websites cites any sources of its own, and they repeat innuendos that have never been confirmed. For example, the article contends that "in Oct 1998 it was revealed that the plane (an El Al plane that crashed outside Amsterdam in 1992) was carrying 10 tons of chemicals used in the most dangerous of the known nerve gases, Sarin." The New York Times and London Times both reported that the plane was carrying "50 gallons of dimethyl methylphosphonate" (about 200 pounds - quote from the NYT report), a chemical which can be used for manufacture of Sarin, but which also has a number of industrial uses, including flame retardation. The "Background" section also contains a quote from a London Times Sunday magazine article, that has no footnote, and that I am unable to verify because I don't have access to the Sunday magazine archive.

The contention that Israel has used poison gas against Palestinians has been floated a number of times, and never substantiated. The most notorious instance was a statement by Suha Arafat, the wife of Yasir Arafat, in 1999, a statement that was later retracted by official Palestinian spokesmen.

In sum, the article contains no verifiable information, and relies on sources that contradict the very contentions of the article itself. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I agree that if this is a non-notable hoax or myth it should be deleted. However, are the claims that nerve gas was used sufficiently notable that the article should be moved to something like Alleged 2001 Israeli nerve gas attacks be re-written along the lines of "It was claimed... ...but denied by Israel and retracted by the Palestinian authorities"? The sources in the article look pretty dodgy so I suspect that this isn't the case, but there may be better sources about the allegations and response which could be used (I know nothing at all about this topic). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Nudve (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Argument is very well put by the nominator so I shan't bother repeating it. All that can be said is that none of the unbiased sources used in the article actually state that there was an attack, and their use makes it a bit of a WP:SYNTH mess. Despite having lived in Israel and having what I would say is a fairly good general knowledge of the conflict, I have never heard of this incident. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such attack happened. Renaming it to "allegations of X" and retaining it still leaves us with a fundamentally dishonest article. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said in the WP:Israel discussion, I don't think the factual accuracy of the article is even relevant. The article violates other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:POVFORK. Who says that 2001 was a notable year for nerve gas attacks, assuming they happenned? Who says that nerve gas attacks are more notable than rubber bullet attacks, for example? Even if this aritcle proves to be 100% factually accurate, it should be merged and not kept. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blood libel. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for defamatory unconfirmable conspiracy theories. RayAYang (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle as suggested above. Thiswill need careful editing,to make it clear that they are accusations only. It's notable enough that it needs to be covered. Wikipedia is very much the place where we cover conspiracy theories objectively. DGG (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps retitle - I created this article - I seem to be unable to log back in. While the absolute authority of each of these reports may be less than, for instance, a report on the BBC, there provenance is more than reasonable, and the combined weight must be considerable indeed. Jonathan Cook is certainly a well-respected individual, living in the region. Given the history of Israel killing observers, abusing and even straffing civilians, and denying acts that flout every kind of International Law, this report deserves a place in any kind of reference to the history of Israel. Its deletion would smack of denial, the same thing we've seen from the same quarters over the Armenian Genocide. Templar99. Templar98 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking about the "combined weight" of the sources is a nonsense - many of the sources (and indeed none of the mainstream ones) do not actually refer to the supposed incident - you mention Cook, but his article says nothing about nerve gas - and putting them together is mere WP:SYNTH. The fact that the story has not covered by mainstream media organisations usually accused of being anti-Israel (e.g. the BBC or Guardian), or the generally self-critical Israeli media, suggests that it is rubbish. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly retitle with "alleged". I note that the article is tagged as WP:HOAX; I do not think that tag is quite justified, but the evidence cited is little more than suspicions and innuendo. Accordingly, the article seems to fail WP:V. The international community has takenm a very serious view of the gassing of a Kurdish village in the 1980s. Canisters of the gas were apparetn;ly available to the Palestinians. These would almost certainly have contained residues. It seems to me inconceivable that they did not make the best efforts to identify the gas, and to publicise it widely if it was a nerve gas. The fact, that they did not do, suggests to me that their analysis revealed that it was not a nerve agent. This leaves the question of whether the existence of allegations (albeit unporved) is itself notable, in which case there might possibly be a case for retention, but hedged about with qualifications as to their unverified nature. Nevertheless, my preference is for a delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christian Oscar of Hanover[edit]

Unverifiable article - no sources cited, the only Google hit for this name is this article. Also, even if he existed, how is he notable? He seems to have no significant coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 06:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the same could probably be said for several entries in List of members of the House of Hanover. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Sandstein 07:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He certainly exists; you may just be having issues with the English transliteration. See for instance this; look for "Christian Oskar" etc. Whether he's notable is a different question. One mention points to Life magazine of May 3, 1954, p. 49 as having a story about the Prince capturing two purse snatchers. I don't have access to the reference to judge whether it can be considered nontrivial coverage. See also a passing mention here, here. He also seems to have played an active role in the management of Durisol Werke GemBH [53]. (Durisol is an organic building material.) Choess (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep If the person exists (per User:Choess's research), then keep. Otherwise, delete. Courtesy titles do denote at least some notability. JRP (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep close descendant of ruling monarchs are notable. DGG (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian Oskar Prinz von Hannover was a prominent member of the House of Hanover, the former ruling house of the United Kingdom. His notability is especially relevant with concerns to post-World War II Austria. The article on the prince has enough sourcing and detail to be kept, and more will develop as more sources become available. There are stubs all over Wikipedia about less notable things with one sentence and a stub template at the bottom--this article is obviously not one of those. --Caponer (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Gaina[edit]

Non-notable self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 Ghits --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being autobiography doesn't automatically kill it but it is insufficiently referenced to demonstrate sufficient notability and that does. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regarding COI, the fact that this is an auto-biography is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete the article, but it is a reason to scrutinize the article very closely. Regarding ghits, I would note that he apparently writes his name as Alex rather than Alexei in his publications, so googling should be done for "Alex Gaina". That being said, the data available does not establish notability per WP:ACADEMIC. GoogleScholar produces very little in terms of citability of his papers[54]. I looked up the WebOfScience and found only a few papers by him listed there, with very low citation hits (low single digits tops). I also looked up the publication list at the astrophysics data system, the link of which is provided in the article. There are indeed 144 items listed there, which looks impressive but, in and of itself, insufficient. I clicked on a sample of about 20 of them, spread over a period of time, and again there are very few citations of his works recorded there, with top hits in low single digits. It is possible that somehow all these indexes miss a lot of relevant info since most of his publications are in eastern-european souyrces (Russian, Moldavian, Romanian, Serbian, etc). Still, I would want to see some positive evidence that his work substantially influenced the work of others in the area. So, based on the data available, does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web of science, gives 17 papers. (they are under Gaina AB). The peculiar thing , as has been noted, is that the most cited of them has been cited only 7 times --and that's for all the time since the 1980s. (and the two most cited are coauthored with his advisor). They are all in Russian journals, though, and WoS notoriously undercounts citations to these, because many of the citations come from the Russian journals it does not cover. But that might be a factor of 2 or so, and, even so, ADS should have picked them up. Even odder, they are in a very active field--black hole physics. The key is to look at the author address: he is in a provincial university, in Moldavia. I do not understand the subject well enough to be able to tell from reading the papers why his colleagues world-wide think the work less than significant, but so it is. DGG (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that this a valid topic that can be expanded, no prejudice to a merge being proposed which can be discussed on the talk page . Davewild (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reader (Anglican Church)[edit]

Definition of a simple, basic specialized term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this violates WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:DICT. It is a perpetual stub with "that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status." It is basically a two sentence definition that belongs, at best, in Anglican Church. It already has a listing in Wiktionary[55] which might benefit from this slightly longer definition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This can be expanded pretty easily. We can discuss the specific duties of a reader, the history of the position, statistical data about the position, etc. See [56] for starters. Zagalejo^^^ 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, seems like there's an entire book about readers. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to improve and expand this article beyond a brief definition. Zagalejo has suggested some good ideas and starting points, as well as a possible reference. --Canley (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and expand)...there is enough info for the article. It merely needs to be expanded. --Cameron * 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For a previous copyvio added to the Reader article, I think this guy is a reasonably solid stub. In the nature of full disclosure, I split this article out of Reader and cleaned it up a good bit. To the nominator: I recommend that, in the future, you let more than a few days pass before deciding that a stub "cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status". -FrankTobia (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lay reader. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! So, is that basically the same thing? Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more general. The article under discussion seems to be focussed on Reader ministry in the Church of England, which has the most organized scheme of any of the Anglican churches. Lay reader incorporates material on Anglican churches in other parts of the world (and uses the name by which the office is most widely known internationally). But yes, substantively the same article. In fact, on second thought, I don't know if there's anything in here to merge. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the sourcing... -FrankTobia (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's not every day that you see a discussion where the first six comments result in six different suggestions. Delete, merge, split, rename, keep and redirect - wow! In any case there is clearly no consensus as far as what to do with this article, although the broad diversity in opinions and suggestions here is clearly indicative that the status quo is not an acceptable solution. As there is, however, no consensus to delete, any discussion on precisely what to do with it should continue among interested editors. Shereth 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Items[edit]

This article had in-universe information and not a sign of notability. It is filled with Fancruft and/or original research. Unless notability could be found, this article has no reason being here on this site, or should be merged with the main series article. Anyone agree? ZeroGiga (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the information on these items has little if any real world relevance. The individual items should redirect to relevant characters (ie. Millennium Puzzle to Yugi Mutou, Millennium Ring to Ryo Bakura), but this article in itself is better suited for the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other articles A lot would be cut down, but I would like to see some coverage of these items. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please suggest where you would merge this to? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split into corresponding character articles or sections. StardustDragon 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename' to Yugioh millennium items, and merge all the item articles here. Since the current name is unclear and misleading, suggesting "actual" millennarianism, and having all these separate articles is fancrufty. OR merge everything to a List of Yugioh items. 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major plot arc and items in the Yu-Gi-Oh! universe. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight fold redirect per JuJube Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unencyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:UNENCYC for a reason that this is an argument to avoid. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It looks like many or even most of the Yu-Gi-Oh articles aren't sourced or anything; rather than just using this to set a precedent to delete all of them, though, we should notify the appropriate Wikiproject to come and bring the whole set of pages up to par. Some of the information really should be preserved, and I'd rather that the merging and deletion be done by experts rather than us. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to where, exactly? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely important part of hugely notable anime series. Inadequate sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion, and redirection to individual character articles is not appropriate since the items changed ownership several times throughout the series. The items are important on their own, and merging information anywhere else would make other articles quite long. It's best to keep this localized here. GlassCobra 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in the course of the "present time" timeline of the series, the items are only used by one character each (Shadi used two). Although Bakura got the Eye and eventually Yugi got all of them, their abilities were not utilized by them. So I believe redirects would be appropriate. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would still argue that the items have importance by themselves and are relevant by themselves relative to the series as a whole. I wouldn't say that each of the items needs their own article, but I still very much think it's best to keep this information localized here, as I mentioned above. GlassCobra 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE useless and is not for wikipedia the items are already included in the characters who has the millennium items so its not needed.Grimmjow E6 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate collective article for things of less than full individual notability. the sort of compromise that should be encouraged here. I think Glass Cobra has the right approach. Possibly a title change would be a good idea, but I leave that to the experts, and the article talk page is the proper place for discussing that. DGG (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Glasscobra. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any sources, how are we to say that anything in this article is verifiable, much less notable? One primary source is cited parenthetically but numerous other claims--including claims outside the scope of the fictional primary sourcing--are made without evidence. Several sections (and the lead) contain elements of original research (as of this revision). I'll try to remove some of the more blatant OR in a bit. At the very least this article needs some inline citations referencing the storyline claims (ignoring the fact that WP:WAF would suggest removal of most of the content here). Also, every image used in this page claims to be released into the public domain as the original work of the uploader. I assume this to be the case but they look like they were pulled from a webpage to me. Again, no sources, no verifiability, no article. If we do find primary sources, the article still does not meet WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. I'm not opposed to a merger of material to respective characters or similar. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel it applies here --T-rex 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dweeb. I have no opinion or arguments on this, but felt like stating at least that much. user:Everyme 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; despite the lack of sources, it appears that this is a notable aspect of the broader subject and that it needs an individual article for the sake of comprehensive coverage of that broader subject. Everyking (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Caloocan City Chorale[edit]

Possible issues include Notability, Not a social network, no evidence of encylopaediacness. Please discuss. Avi (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotion, written like an add, only 122 Ghits [57] Also all the photos should be deleted. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Philippine only Google search nets 7 hits: 2 unrelated, 1 unreliable site, 2 friendster hits and two WikiPilipinas articles. Fails all accounts on WP:MUSIC as well as notability hinges only on local (not national) awards.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due to notability concerns. Starczamora (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Misguided nomination. `'Míkka >t 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of the people[edit]

Unencyclopedic entry created explicitly as anti-communist propaganda, since it has been decided that references to other similar uses of the phrase are not appropriate for the article. This material is better worked into Soviet Union or communism article. SmashTheState (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Merge this with propaganda or communism or some other article.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no citations, reads like an essay. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa. The term has some pedigree (Ibsen picked it for a reason) apart from Soviet style communism. It is hardly propoganda: what is in the article right now reflects pretty well received history on the Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin. Also, we delete stuff if it violates NOT/NPOV/V/NOR or can't meet N. The wording can be fixed. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Scholar. Books. Mead is kind of an authority. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a rewrite. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be improved but it's certainly a notable term which was used against dissenters in communist societies. Saying it was created as 'anti communist propaganda' is hardly assuming good faith either. Here is an article from today's New York Times which explicitly uses the term regarding China's treatment of Falun Gong. [58]. I note, in passing that 'Smashthestate' might have a bit of an axe to grind here himself, as his user page notes only that "This Fellow Worker is a proud member of the Industrial Workers of the World." Nick mallory (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also kind of a party foul to not notify the principle creator of the article. I know he/she probably knows but it is a pleasant gesture. I have gone ahead and place a notification message. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep used by Ancient Rome. 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep you have got to be kidding me Sceptre ^(talk) 10:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to communism. It would be better there. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highly notable, long established concept and nominate User:SmashTheState to Wikipedia:Enemies of the people in lieu of a trout. Skomorokh 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep though it needs expansion.Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but needs revision to cover all uses of the phrase (vide Ibsen), not merely the Leninist ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7, no assertion of notability) by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synth (band)[edit]

{{db-band}} removed by an IP. Long article about an unsigned band with no claim of notability Delete Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 anyway. No assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juneau Alaska Police Department[edit]

Fails WP:ORG and ~~WP:LEA~~ Wikipedia:Notability (law enforcement agency); there's nothing truly notable presented in this article; I'll happily withdrawl if someone can find something notable about this police department. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I edited the article before it was nominated for AfD, and I added some newspaper references. Just now, I added details on the first Juneau police officer to die in the line of duty. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Juneau, Alaska Police Department exists, and it's just a copy of this one so a merge is in order. The preferred title would be Juneau Police Department since that's what it's officially called as far as I can tell. At any rate, I support keep. WP:LEA is about lead sections and appears irrelevant here... as a capitol city's police department there is a reasonable claim of importance and looking and google books and google news there seem to be plenty of sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The intended target for [[WP:LEA]] is Wikipedia:Notability (law enforcement agency). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 02:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction... while that's just a proposed guideline it seems reasonable enough, although I'd add an allowance for departments of very large cities (250,000+ people or so). However the guideline says "the article content should be merged and redirected" if notability isn't established, so these pagenames should probably be merged/redirected to Juneau, Alaska rather than deleted. --Rividian (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Notable and KEEP and merge with Juneau, Alaska Police Department ^MY♥_INchile 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge Notability is not in question. Merging this with the other Juneau PD article makes sense. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Juneau, Alaska Police Department. It could be a probable search term. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Juneau, Alaska Police Department. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Juneau, Alaska, which as a city of 30,000, despite being a state capital, is below the level at which it needs a separate article for each agency. I'm not sure where people are getting "keep and merge" but they should be aware these contradict each other. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess they mean merge the duplicate articles on the police department (see my first comment). Personally, upon reflection, I'm for merging to the Juneau, Alaska article... nothing exceptionally notable about this department has been established thus far. --Rividian (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Large city police departments are notable, and I think as the capitol city this might qualify.DGG (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Juneau, Alaska Police Department and then Rename to Juneau Police Department. Why have two articles with similar names or merge only one into the city article? The rename is needed to the actual name of the department as on the website. As to notability, it is the police department for a state capital. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, notability is clear but article already exists. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solidified[edit]

Non-notable single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC. It's never been on the charts or won any awards. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Rock[edit]

Seems like a neologism. The sources are to be desired; the only ones in the article are primary sources, and places where people can enter their own genres. (by virtue of the last.fm source, "post-screamocore" should be allowed). Contested prod. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NEO, and Google returns nothing good. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire and brimstone, per WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things MEDAVON made up one day. -Verdatum (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per WP:NFT --T-rex 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newbran Recordings[edit]

Not a notable record label. No reliable sources to verify information. Fails WP:CORP. Was PRODed, but has already been deleted through PROD once before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources=no notability=no article. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources. I would vote to keep, if a few reliable sources could be found. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decisions can be made at King of the Hill.-Wafulz (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Lo Mart[edit]

Non-notable fictional store, lacks reliable sources to verify information. Lacks out of universe content. Was PRODed, but had already been deleted through PROD. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real world context, not notable outside of KOTH. JuJube (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Hill or (my choice) Wal-Mart. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Hill. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again. My effort to add the content to King of the Hill was removed.. tho I'm wary of "in popular culture / trivia" sections.. maybe Wal-Mart would be a better target. --Versa geek 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete Plenty of content out there. Just needs some time spent on it. I have added some. Calebrw (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but it still lacks the out-of-universe content WP:FICT asks for. I've got no problem with a merge, though. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with King of the Hill or if it exists the article or section Parodies of WalMart/WalMart (or Big Box retailers) in pop culture^MY♥_INchile 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough out there about the store to merit keeping this article. Whoever wrote it just didn't take the time to highlight the fact that it's a huge plot device in several episodes of King of the Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.129.94 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King of the Hill. This is a tough call for me as I like the series and believe Wikipedia gives it short-shrift compared to the, less notable, American Dad!. However the King of the Hill article is not that long and this fictional place has not reached the notability of Kwik-E-Mart. Now my ideal would be to merge this article to an article on Arlen, Texas, but no such article exists.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thgere's enough to keep. But if not, find or make a fairly specific place to merge, such as "Locations in ..." DGG (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King of the Hill. Article is too short, and only has plot. Gman124^talk 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has only wikia as a source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to keep content, I am by nature a mergetarian, and favor such in this case. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Redeemer Lutheran Church[edit]

The church's notability is not apparent in the article, which reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable per WP:ORG. The article has no independent sources with the possible exception of one currently non-working link that I haven't actually been able to view. A Google search finds nothing that establishes notability, but does indicate that there are numerous churches named "Our Redeemer Lutheran Church", and many of the Google hits refer to other churches of the same name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this place^MY♥_INchile 07:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a nice place and good people go there, but Wikipedia is not a church directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many churches are notable. This one is not --T-rex 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellious Arab Girl[edit]

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable blogger. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A3. The page is currently blank. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G7 - author blanked page. So tagged. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Potters Association[edit]

Non-notable arts group whose notability appears to be very limited to a highly defined local setting. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article doesn't assert notability through references, but there are some G-hits that show some potential notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one you cite is the organizations website itself, not a WP:RS. I agree though, the group shows some notability. I found quite a few news articles that mentioned the group, if not about the group entirely.[59] -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 03:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a statewide organization would appear to be of note.^MY♥_INchile 07:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nero Vipus[edit]

NN fictional character. The source provided is published by Black Library and as such is not independent. Article is purely in universe and likely to remain that way. Taemyr (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it clearly doesn't exist; nothing else matters. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- more non-notable 40K cruft. This is about as indiscriminate as information gets. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character in a spinoff fiction from the main game. Source referenced is published by GW (and the parenthetical source is another novel published by GW). I've stubbed the article to bring it in line with WP:WAF. Notability is not established from independent sources. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virtual community, redundant page but a somewhat plausible redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online web community[edit]

More neologism shenanigans, this time in cyberspace. What is an "online web community" -- as opposed to, say, an "offline web community"? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered by Virtual community, contains no additional info, not a highly likely search term. If not delete, redirect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ryan Paddy. JuJube (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to virtual community ^MY♥_INchile 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to virtual community; redundant copy. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goge Vandire[edit]

No real world context provided. Unlikey that any real world content can be supplied. No indpendednt sources provided, and I can not find any. Taemyr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Too much detail on too minor a character. Better as a personal web page. JJL (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet more 40K cruft. This dude is probably as notable as a 40K character can get, but there's still not much hope of finding many sources outside what Games Workshop publish themselves. Reyk _YO! 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete wow is that a hell of a lot of unsourced bullshit about one insignificant video game character.^MY♥_INchile 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Pure fancrap with numerous issues in terms of notability, verifiability, plot summary, real-world content, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources establish the notability of the subject. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Notability isn't supported by references that are independent of the publisher, Games Workshop, the makers of the game. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kent Road Theater[edit]

Non-notable theater company. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a lot on Google except for its own website. Non-notable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few google hits with nothing resembling a valid source independent of the subject indicates that this organization is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for keeping have been refuted in that, while this is sourced, it is essentially a redundant content fork. Shereth 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament church[edit]

Article cites no external sources indicating the phrase or subject is specifically notable, but is seemingly just a collection of possibly cherry-picked quotations/citations from the New Testament, possibly for didactic purposes. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, original synthesis-- which is great for Sunday sermons, but not for an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for over a year and the concept is better covered at Early Christianity#Organization. Probably redirect after deleting. GRBerry 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Oodles and oodles of sources exist on this topic. Including a book from 1912. And one from 1908. Here's an article from the Sacremento Bee(pay only) referencing it. And one from The Lexington Herald Leader(also pay-only). A quick Google search confirms the notability of the term. It should be noted, however, that "New Testament church" is the proper name for the term, and is not to be confused with the various "New Testament Church" organizations. While I'm 100% certain this term is notable, I will admit that the article needs a bit of work towards clarity and POV. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs cleanup, as it has plenty of sources that establish notability. SashaNein (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the events that happened in the christian church in the New Testament are notable it is already covered in the articles on early christian history. Even if the article was improved it would be redundant.Ltwin (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Technically, the New Testament(NT) church would include the whole of every Christian person within the scope of the NT. And since the NT is a prophetic book documenting alleged future events, every Christian person alive today is part of the NT church. But the bigger point is, "NT church" is a broad topic covering a set beliefs, periods of history, and a set of followers. Many, many books, essays, sermons, and articles have been written about the topic; doesn't it at least deserve a full article? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with your perspective that this is a valid subject for an article. However, the material there now is not useful for a future article on this subject and our readers of today would be better served by the redirect I suggested above. Should you put in enough rewriting effort to change that, my opinion would change. Heck, tag the redirect {{r with possibilities}}, it would be one. GRBerry 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had been playing with the idea of rewriting it myself. It's a broad subject, though, and, in all honesty, I don't know if my writing skills are up to par. I'm also worried about absentmindedly introducing a bit of a POV and factual errors. None-the-less, if no other editor tackles the job by tomorrow, I will give it my best shot. (Providing they don't call me to work.) As a matter of courtesy, I ask that the editor who decides to tackle the job use the {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} templates. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment comes off as possibly notable but this seems false since it seems to be already covered in the article New Testament itself. The idea seems like it has potential but the article is horrible and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs)
Delete A special quotation farm of this sort is really only a subject fork, and fully covered elsewhere. If we should need a more specialized article, this is not even a useful start. DGG (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have re-written the article. It's only a stub, as of right now (because I worked all day and am tired), but it would be easy to expand. If I'm off tomorrow, I may begin expanding it. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Various denominations have sought to go back to a primitive form of Christian worship, for example Plymouth Brethren and various Pentecostal denominations, not just the New Testament Church of God, which is one among many. Many of the ancient churches would no doubt claim the same of their liturgy, though I suspect that its origin is in many cases lost in the mists of time. An article on the worship of the early church (and the differing view on it) might well be useful, but I do not think this is it. If some one is prepared to work on this, I would allow the article to stand and see what emerges, but at the moment this is not an article that we should keep permanently. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be differing opinions on the subject of the article. Very interesting. I only referenced New Testament Church of God as an example of a congregation that actually included "New Testament Church" in the title. I'm sure many of the "mainstream" US denominations (Baptist, Pentecostal, Holiness, etc.) consider themselves a New Testament church. I mainly only included a dicdef of the term, so expanding would be simpler later on. In encourage anyone to add anything they think may be helpful to the article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment further -- I hope that the view is emerging that this article should be rescued. I suspect that a number of us may have different POVs, based on different denominational backgrounds as to what characterised a New Testament Church. The fact that any one person may be expressing a POV should not be a concern as other editors can identify it as such. What I am clear of however is that no single denomination can assert that it (uniquely) has recovered the NT pattern. However, this article is rightly tagged for REscue. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Precedent is that future singles like this should be redirected until they're independently notable .Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 Minutes of Shame (song)[edit]

Song hasn't charted yet, no reliable sources, WP:CRYSTAL. A redirect to the artist was undone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the song won't be notable until it charts. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eric444 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary redirect – The song will be officially released to radios on August 11, which I agree is too far into the future right now, but the song has already gotten media coverage [60], so will likely be notable enough sometime in the near future. I think for now a redirect to Kristy Lee Cook is appropriate (although I'm not totally opposed to deletion), since future re-creation would be fine once the single has charted, or becomes otherwise notable. Jamie^☆S93 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Until release. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted or redirected, please see that the category Category:Kristy Lee Cook songs is deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jamie and Sam. Leonard^(Bloom) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's coming...be patient, don't delete it. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kristy Lee Cook for now. Not yet warranted, but likely will be soon. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Bitter[edit]

Unreferenced, orphaned band article. They have released albums, but the article doesn't state whether they were on a label, or self-released or what. I tried searching for some references, but I didn't see anything that looked very reliable. It doesn't appear to me that this band meets WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the notability criteria for bands. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons listed above. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fernandes[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not state notability. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has already been written on Tony Fernandes with more information --ZooFari 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Marlon[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Real name Marlon Braccia. Had a tough time finding real sources.John Z (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion, reads like an add. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William McKay Aitken[edit]

~~Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has written several books, most of which have been published by well-known publishers such as Penguin. I added some references. I think he is notable as a writer. --Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources bleeding clearly listed. — goethean ॐ 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Can you please expand? From what I read in these "references" there is only one reliable source. And, this source is an "opinion" section of a newspaper which reviews a books of the subject. This might be one reliable source, but more is needed to establish notability - such as claims to notability and reliable sources to back these claims up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three newspapers are cited as references: The Telegraph (India), The Times of India, The Statesman (India) --Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Three are cited, but only one deals with the subject of the article. I am not disputing that three sources are cited, I am questioning their validity in verifying the notability of the subject. I only see one relevant source so far, and it is only a passing reference. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ism schism, I confess to some curiosity as to what would not be a "passing reference" in your view, as on earlier occasions you have deemed entire chapters of books, completely devoted to a topic, sometimes dozens of pages long, "passing references." Your comments might be easier to understand if this point were clarified.John Z (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rather than listing a ton of articles for deletion, please make some effort to expand them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE through "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". If someone with access to JSTOR could look at this [61], it might be a valuable addition. Jim Miller (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources given above and guideline cited by Jim Miller.John Z (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well published by mainstream house (Penguin Books). ~ priyanath talk 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summary: we can hardly have an article for every travel writer.
- Jim Miller: I looked at the JSTOR link. It's a brief one-page book review of his book, in a specialized academic journal (the Journal of Asian Studies), clearly not intended for general audiences.
- The newspaper reference in the Times of India is indeed marginal; Mr. Aitken gets one sentence.
- The Telegraph article contains a one paragraph review of a recently published book.
- The Statesman article is behind a paywall and not accessible to me, and not susceptible of close examination.
- I expect that any better-than-awful travel writer can aspire to a one paragraph review in a newspaper, a single quotation, and maybe a short review in an academic journal specializing in the area of their travels. Mr. Aitken's notability, I conclude, is so marginal a case of WP:CREATIVE that to include him would be twisting the guideline past its primary intent, which is to include people worthy of notice for a good long time. Best, RayAYang (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple books, published by Oxford & Penguin is notability, or would be for any other author. There's nothing marginal about these publishers. A review of a travel book in an academic journal is sufficiently rare that it shows specially distinctive notability, more than a general book review. All subjects are treated equally here, we do not have special more restrictive standards for travel writers than others. DGG (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there are numerous keep votes above, and per Jim Miller, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Venet[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Books authored: [62], Sources: [63], Cites [64] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Those links exist because the subject translated a book and wrote a book. I believe that this subject is not notable. There are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish notability for this subject. Also, the article cites a book that Luc Venet wrote - this is not a reference. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - There are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish notability for this subject.
  - Really? How do you know? What type of search have you done? Maybe you could share the results of your hard work with the community if it proves your point. I can't think of any legitimate reason why you wouldn't have done so. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please calm down a bit, people. Attacks on the habits of the nominator are uncivil and unhelpful. Direct your responses towards the subject of the nomination. Best, RayAYang (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a friend or co-author here of a notable person does not make one notable. My Google check only shows 2 books coauthored by this person here He is Not notable. Artene50 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jossi. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one can vote twice goethan on the same page. (only comment) As I said Venet fails WP:RS and has only minor WP:N Artene50 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. It seems the subject is notable as there are reliable sources that have been pointed out. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Johnsen[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article does list a reliable source, the complete idiot's guide to Hinduism. — goethean ॐ 01:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:CREATIVE; wrote a dozen books, particularly complete idiot's guide; Her books are well known, from glancing at the results of about 60 google book hits not written by her.John Z (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If her books are notable, why are there no reviews? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—She appears well published and her works are available from Amazon and B&N, as well as scanned into Google books. Seems sufficiently notable to me.—RJH (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well published, and not self-published at that. ~ priyanath talk 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment[edit]

Non notable with only passing references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains sufficient references to establish notability. — goethean ॐ 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced as a public advocacy group, in addition to notability as a religious organization. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sundaranand[edit]

~~Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What are you talking about? Article lists six sources. — goethean ॐ 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply None of these six sources are third party reliable sources that estabilsh notability. Also, the subject is a non notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You assume. You assume that the individual is non-notable. By the way, "non" isn't a word. — goethean ॐ 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have proof otherwise, I do not see sources for notability, any evidence? Also, thank you for the english lesson on how "non" is not a word. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Like you, I haven't had a chance to research this topic or the other hundred articles that you've nominated for deletion, so I am as utterly ignorant of the subjects as you are. But on each afd, you assert that the subject is "non notable". You don't know that, you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with it, and you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you limit your assertions to subjects of which you have some knowledge. — goethean ॐ 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the sources was a magazine published by the United Nations, Our Planet. How could that not be reliable? Again, the notion of notability appropriate for AfD's is whether there are reliable sources for a topic, not whether they are in the article already.Although this one was decently sourced, I added a couple more anyways. AfD is supposed to be the last resort, only for articles which cannot be improved through normal editing. He is certainly notable by my favorite test - Iheardofhimbeforesomewhere - the Christian Science Monitor quote about the ganges has gotten some play.John Z (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes sources exist and in the article but these sources do not establish this subject as notable. Also, there not multiple independent sources for which Swami Sundaranand is the subject. As is, the article still deserves a vote of Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned just above, sources exist. I think they would be regarded as sufficient for notability for people in general. DGG (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sources clearly assert notability, his work in promoting public awareness of glacier recession and global warming is notable by itself. Would that any of us could be a hundredth as notable. ~ priyanath talk 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the new info provided above, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Freeman Patchen[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an average writer. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Non-notable writer. Two Google News searches on this writer return nothing. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; the suggestion that sources may exist in another language without providing any, and the use of ghits alone as evidence of notability were unconvincing. The article lacks sources to verify assertions of notability, and so the nominator's arguments are quite convincing. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar (author)[edit]

Non notable and no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author writes in German and there are sources available in Google books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If the author writes in German, is the author notable as an author in the German language, or a niche author in a particular field? Are there any claims to this person being notabile, and if so, are there any reliable sources to back up these claims? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable third party references to attest to notability in the article as it currently stands. RayAYang (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, we mark it as needing sources. AfDs are for not salvageable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me -- it is not merely that I believe the article flawed for lack of good sources, although I do. I do not, on the basis of available information, believe the subject of the article to be notable. Of course, significant coverage in reliable sources would change my mind on this. RayAYang (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this person is notable as an author in the German language then this should be established by reliable sources. To date there is no evidence to back up this claim. Such statements, with no sources provided, do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Verification. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will also include this discussion in the Authors deletion sorting in an attempt to gain further comments per the relevance of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a brief look at his Ghits reveals lots of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I also saw Google hits for this article. It was not for a lack of Google hits that I nominated this article. It was because the individual lacks notability. Google hits does prove he exist, though claims to notability, and reliable sources to back up these claims, are still needed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article is probably notable but needs a rewrite. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rotherham[edit]

Blatant advert for an actor. At least the author has had the honesty to declare her COI - here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advert, this is an informative page about a man who dedicates his life in teaching people about proper history. He has alot of knowledge to offer, in fact so much he's practically an institution on his own. He does not need an advert as he's now working solely as an re-enactor for his own pleasure and educational purposes. I have removed any external links that might be compromising.

Yes I have made his websites, for free. There is no money involved, so it's no COI. As he's a friend and has a teacher's income as that's what he does these days. There's no conflict of interest, I am just someone making a page about an interesting person. What is the difference between an info page about him or a band. (probably made by fans or someone within their record company; isn't that conflict of interest?). I mean, Christopher Walken is on here too for example. He's an actor. But JUST an actor. This is not an actor's article, this is an article about someone who's much more than that and with all his knowledge, almost being an encyclopedia himself, deserves a place on here.

I am trying hard to make it just an infopage, there are no external links, even though pages about other 'famous' people have loads to fansites and all and they said I needed to put in refs. Just because he's not world famous, does not make this any more of an advert than any other page about any other artist, musician or whatever.

Instead of calling 'fire' right away I would appreciate it if people would first tell me about it on my talk page and more calmly explain to me, a new user to wikipedia, who already had an overload of input trying to get through all the rules and just making a page like I've seen about other people on here aplenty, why it would be wrong and what would be wrong. It's no different in content as far as I can tell. What makes him less deserving of a place than say Robert de Niro? They're both just humans doing their thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoelpistina (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. JuJube (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was missing references, so I found some at Google News archive and added them. I think that notability is now established. --Eastmain (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me. References are still a little thin, but with some being found easily by Eastmain (above) leads me to believe there is reasonable potential for even more. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep. The current version is heavily cut-and-pasted from Rotherham's personal site and needs to be rewritten for tone, but he seems notable enough as a minor actor. --McGeddon (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It reads like an ad, and there are very few references. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice CV, but references don't pass WP:BIO muster. Specifically, the references only mention his name in the context of a quote or two. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep Seems notable. Needs heavy work &; rewrite. -- I've read his sources and there "not great" to say the least, but it DOES look like he has some notability. He has been in a few movies, and thats the requirement per WP:BIO. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 03:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Essence Foundation[edit]

Non notable foundation with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article neither establishes notability nor has indpendent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article on founder, Arjuna Ardagh, who has a respectable number (40) of gbook hits not written by him.John Z (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable, and the same for the author. This group/person seem very keen to promote themselves. Sticky Parkin 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per john Z — goethean ॐ 00:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there are no reliable sources for this article, there is nothing to merge. The foundation is already listed on its founder's article. Its website can be noted there. As there are no reliable sources that assert this foundation's notability, I feel that it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Merge any non-redundant info to the founders page.Yobmod (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:N per lack of WP:RS, among other things. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jane[edit]

There's just so many things wrong with this article, it's not even funny. The references given are difficult to hunt down; only two (maybe?) separate newspapers. The article was likely written by the subject, as per others' tagging it thusly. The external links are either his own sites or definitely biased. My own cursory Yahoo seach (seen on the talk page) was very short: only one page could actually be identified as relating to him, and it was a list of his podcast on a website with unknown notability or prominence. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. JuJube (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His claims to fame are distinctly unnotable. Notice that googling on "Azusa Street Music School" produces his website, an ad, and the Wikipedia page. [65]. RayAYang (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of references from two newspapers in Michigan (Pioneer Newspaper and Osceola Edition) which do not put their full text online. However, they appear to be reliable sources. See http://www.pioneergroup.com/newspapers/ Yes, there are a lot of things wrong with the article and yes, this person is not very important in the whole scheme of things, but I think he is notable by Wiikipedia standards. --Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure he's a great guy and musician, but the references given are not exactly the kind that we seek in the "notability" category. Should his career or musical impact broaden (or additional noteworthy information be presented) I'd be happy to change my stance. Until then, Wikipedia is not a directory of budding musicians.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Azusa Street Music School appears to be of little notability and the description on Jane's website indicates that it may be more of a personal project than a professional school, and there appear to be no secondary sources to prove its notability. WP:BIO requires more than trivial coverage by secondary sources, and I don't see that from the secondary sources mentioned in the "keep" comment above. More specifically, no requirement listed by WP:CREATIVE is met here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been speedied really. Deb (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SocioNihilism[edit]

After a lengthy search, I could find no information in reliable sources to verify the content of this article. Unless such information is forthcoming, I think the article should be deleted, as we have no reason to believe it is accurate. The article has WP:PROBLEMS related to original research etc., but obviously these are irrelevant to the deletion debate. Skomorokh 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very interesting, but not notable. Zazaban (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not redeemable. Even if this is real, this is not how you create an article. Sources come first and then content. This article does nothing to attribute socionihilism. If it was something real, it would point to personalities or publications upon which the term is founded. -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) per no !delete comments and subject playing for the national team. WilliamH (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Alexander Flores[edit]

Originally a prod, it appears this guy has been called up to the El Salvador national squad for a WC qualifier (see [66] for instance). So instead I've put it up for AfD. No vote.-- ugen64 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, in fact it appears he has already made his debut for the national team - [67] on a March 23 friendly against Venezuela. So maybe this can be closed quickly? ugen64 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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