Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

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 keep, given WP:SNOW, per withdrawing nominator. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural Bears Classification System[edit]

The Natural Bears Classification System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason: Notability. Obscure internet coding system (like Geek Code but not as popular?) for bears (the gay slang term, not the furry animal). User0529 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination-- though I'm persuaded this exists, it's not notable. Notwithstanding the George-Halas-turning-over-in-his-grave factor, the premise is that gay males who are looking for a hairy partner (hence "natural bears") would all understand and use a code like "B4 s- m g++ w d+c t+ f+ k+ r e+(+?)". Maybe a gay cryptographer would, and imagine the consequences ("What? You're a g+(-?), not a g++ (+?)!!! Liar!! Get out of here!!") Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as a gay version of geek code, I expected to find blog postings and whatnot, but was surpiried to find it has been covered in print sources. The Bear Book devotes would appear to devote a section to it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Googling produces a number of references, including 2 books, one of which "The Bear Book II: Further readings in the history and evolution of a gay male subculture" by Les Wright is clearly an academic work. The fact that this code is obviously ridiculous has not stopped it being studied and thus being notable. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Odd and obscure but notable enough. Bears, like many subsets within the LGBT communities, were early and avid adopters of emerging technologies including usenet groups, chat rooms and email, this code, like the geek code is interesting to those looking at social dynamics in this context. It would be helpful, and hopefully interesting, to expand the article to show how the code emerged, was used and it's present usage tying into other forms of social networking. Banjeboi 09:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, weak keep. I don't personally feel it is notable, but i've seen it around on the net and mentioned in magazines, so it passes WPs criteria..Yobmod (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withrdaw nomination - per WP:SNOWBALL. User529 (talk) 03:22, 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 given the extensive expansion - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fag stag[edit]

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

Obscure term even within the gay community, stub article better suited for a dictionary User0529 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete From the article, "The phrase 'fag stag', although rare, is beginning to be used more often as homosexuality becomes more readily accepted among straight men." I'm sorry, we don't keep articles about phrases that are rare. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment. We do if they are notable enough. The concern you mention should be fixed through regular editing. Banjeboi 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rarely used phrases, by definition, are not notable. If they become notable, then it no longer be said that they are rare. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT for obscure and unnotable reference for gays. Artene50 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much like twink and fruit, fag stag can be much more than a simple dictionary definition. Here's seven books that may be useful, and several articles that may help.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Banjeboi 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What in the world? I've never heard this term before. --Eric (mailbox) 07:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've never heard of it? That seems like a terrible reason to delete an article. Banjeboi 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominator apparently retired within hours of this AfD, I do think they were sincere in their concerns but are unavailable for discussion. Banjeboi 09:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator withdrawing nomination - Even though Benjiboi was the only editor to vote keep, (s)he has overhauled the article where it would definitely pass even the pokemon test. I am withdrawing my nomination of this article and recommend speedy keep. (not sure if I am eligible to vote as nominator). User529 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:HEY, withdrawal of nomination. This article is a paradigm of quality referenced material, not something meriting deletion.Skomorokh 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although a moot point now that the nomination is withdrawn) Bravo on the addition of a ton of sources. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 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 This was a procedural nomination, so I feel WP:SNOW applies, especially given that I was the editor who bundled this into another AfD in the first place. The article still needs third-party sources, but amid all the "it's useful" !votes I've found a couple actual sources which have me convinced that this is notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation[edit]

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was bundled in with my nomination of Rec.sport.soccer by another editor. In the interest of clarity, I have unbundled this article and put it up for it's own discussion. Otherwise, I abstain for now. DarkAudit (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as I've said before, one of the most important football websites around, clearly notable BanRay 23:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BanRay. ugen64 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rsssf is the single most important website for football statistics. Yes the references could be improved, but the site definitely deserves a mention. It is used as an reliable reference/external link on hundreds of football related Wikipedia articles. (comment copied from yesterdays other nomination) EP 08:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. EP 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It operates as an organisation, with a board and a published charter.[7] It might operate largely in USENET, but it is more than simply a bit of USENET space. Kevin McE (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important, notable, well-known. I think this is going to be a PRETTY clear win for Keep, with not one single vote for Delete. ®∂бЯέЩ§τЄґ♪♫♪ 08:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most important sport websites. Even gets 90 hits on Google News, which is 90 more than a lot of notable websites. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful reference for lots of football related wikipedia articles.--Latouffedisco (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important and notable website which I use frequently for articles. GiantSnowman 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known soccer website. Most likely it is the biggest website for soccer statistics. --Carioca (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's July, but I think there's snow in my yard. DarkAudit (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a couple of citations; an article from The Times (London) that addresses the subject directly and a reference in a book that says, "This is the best informational site, an awesome international soccer archive that is the most complete statistical soccer page existing." Good enough for at least a stub. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 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 (non-admin closure), as per the unanimous consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Person Plural: My Life As A Multiple[edit]

First Person Plural: My Life As A Multiple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. This is a first hand account by the author about his affliction with dissociative identity disorder. Book was on NYT bestseller list in 1999, but otherwise is non-notable. Author did appear on a few TV shows when the book was published. Never reviewed by major newspapers or mainstream media. The author has not written any other books or articles on the subject. Author is not otherwise notable. Book does not appear to be cited by mainstream medical literature. —G716 <T·C> 22:41, 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, early closing per WP:SNOWBALL, borderline speedy-delete case

VAIBS[edit]

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

No evidence of notability provided, no reliable sources provided: external links do not seem to provide independent support for the article's assertions, one is to the bank itself, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article's assertions, the other is to a Yahoo! blog. Googling only gives 15 hits, apparently none to traditionally-edited reliable sources. The Anome (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We sued the bank in Tokyo Disrict Court. Case Number is 467 in Tokyo Disrict Court. Law firm is Kamiyacho Central. Law firm's email is [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you please provide references to verifiable third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of this topic? -- The Anome (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious COI, violates no advertising policy—G716 <T·C> 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since this AfD was filed, the author has now added a considerable amount of new material, and references that support this new material. However, none of this appears to support the central assertion of the article, or the notability of the organization that is the subject of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any coverage of the organization by mainstream media, either Japanese or non-Japanese. The organization is therefore non-notable. (It is interesting to note that we still haven't had an article on Suruga Bank, which is much more notable.) -- Taku (talk) 00:44, 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 Speedy delete G4 (recreation of deleted article) by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up 3D Don't Stop[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Step Up 3D Don't Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF, since filming hasn't started yet. shoy (reactions) 22:07, 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 as recreation of previously deleted article and nn bio posted by someone with a conflict of interest. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce R Hall[edit]

Bryce R Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Webmaster of a non-notable website (doesn't have a WP article), in addition the account that created this page is named after the website. shoy (reactions) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (was tagged just before this nomination). W:N and WP:COI clearly apply. Ros0709 (talk) 21:53, 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. Soxπed93(blag) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amit and naroop[edit]

Amit and naroop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Taking pictures of famous people isn't much of an assertion of notability. shoy (reactions) 21:44, 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 No consensus to delete at this time. —Sean Whitton / 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Reider[edit]

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

Prod removed with no reasoning, delete per MUSIC and NOTMEMORIAL. This wholy uncited article was created after the subject's death. A Google News search draws no coverage outside of Cincinnati, OH and Columbus, OH (her local area) prior to her obituary notice. As she was an independent musician, there are no major tours, no charted hits, no gold records, no assertion of stylistic representatation (in fact, a recent edit to the article compares her to more established artists), no major music awards or radio play, and in fact, nothing at all that fits WP:MUSIC besides the theme song criterion (which is uncited), despite a close to ten-year career claimed by the article. Perhaps the most pertinent question is that if she was so notable as to have an article, why did no one think to start the article before she died? This seems to be a perennal problem here on WP. MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Katie Reider received five awards for her music. Katie Reider's work was notable, and her Blue Jordan Records label, which has a Wikipedia entry, produces other notable artists -- at least one of whom, David Wolfenberger, has a Wikipedia entry. Katie Reider is cited on the Blue Jordan Records entry and was mentioned there prior to her death, so that should further establish her notability. Katie's music is routinely played on Sirius, and her music has appeared on nationally broadcast television shows such as "Dawson's Creek." She was in the midst of an East Coast music tour when she had to stop the tour for medical treatment. She released four records within six years and performed at several regional independent music festivals. News of Katie's death was reported on several websites -- many of them outside the Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio, region.Nomad 2 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Women's music rarely gets radio air time however she is on Sirius, in my view, this woman would have had an article on Wikipedia soon if not for her illness. Ladyjjames (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have articles for people who may have become notable, only for those that are. TigerShark (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomad, that is an overstatement of international coverage of her death. In the source above, Reider's death was reported by Pink News, a well-regarded European GLBT news source, which makes sense as Reider was a gay rights activist. However, the coverage from Pink News should not indicate that she is being covered by European media not centered on GLBT issues. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* COMMENT The fact remains that a reputable European news source covered Katie Reider's death because of her music and her work as a gay rights activist. The editors of Pink News clearly felt Katie Reider's craft and accomplishments were of sufficent familiarity and interest to its readers to report on her death. As a former reporter with three large national newspaper chains in the United States, I can assure you that news organizations do not write obituaries for people for whom such attention would puzzle its readers.Nomad 2 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four albums in six years (per All Music Guide) show she was not just a flash in the pan. While she didn't receive national attention prior to her death, it seems she had an established fan base--possibly enhanced due to her illness, possibly not--and that she certainly appears to have had a certain amount of regional notability. Folkies and coffeehouse musicians don't often get much coverage, but she appears to have received more than about 95% of them. Eauhomme (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a song used on a TV show is not the same as having a song which was the theme tune to a TV show, which is what WP:MUSIC specifies. So unless she wrote the theme tune to Dawson's Creek (which I don't think is claimed) then she still fails WP:MUSIC. TigerShark (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:MUSIC specifies "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable...." It cites the theme song as an example, not the defining criteria. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Incidental music in an episode of a TV show is not notable. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: WP:MUSIC states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Katie's career and performances have been covered with extensive original reporting by numerous news organizations in large DMAs and overseas. WP:MUSIC states "performance in a television show." Katie Reider's music appeared in several nationally broadcast TV shows. WP:MUSIC further states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Katie Reider's music is in rotation on Sirius Satellite Radio. Finally, Katie Reider's work seems to be covered by Point 7: "the local scene of a city." She received five local music awards.Nomad 2 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Katie Reider's music was used in nationally broadcast television shows and is in rotation on Sirius Satellite Radio. Also, Reider's record label is a label of note, and she is cited on Blue Jordan Records Wikipedia page. Further, she won five music awards during her career, and she toured extensively in the United States. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The awards were local, there seems to be no assertion of her having toured nationally, and Blue Jordan is not a label of note. The article on the label lists 19 releases in 11 years, all from local artists only - the various stubs that are bluelinked only build false notability, as most of them only list the same info in the label article. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see anything that prevents the subject from failing the general tests of WP:N and the specific tests of WP:MUSIC. Only the album releases had a chance of notability but they seem to have been published by an independant label which does not seem to be an "important" indie label (as defined in WP:MUSIC). TigerShark (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 speedy delete Virtually all the article was a copyright violation as User Freyde noticed: [9] We can't have copy and paste articles on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly asserts notability and is reasonably well sourced. Local music awards & use of her music in familiar TV programming meets criteria similar to WP:MUSIC, the many reliable sources noting her death suggest she meets WP:N. The assertion that an earlier version was a copyright violation is irrelevant. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Criteria "similar to" what the policy states don't matter; if the criteria as set forth exactly in the policy are not met, that's it, and obits are a poor indicator of notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-MrFizyx (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources listed are local, one is a local alt.weekly and another is a student paper. So that doesn't suggest that her notability as musician went beyond her local communities. --Mosmof (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Franke once said, "I never succeeded in becoming a national figure, but I succeeded in becoming local in an awful lot of places." Do you suggest that an "alt.weekly" of a major city and the "student paper" of the largest US university are not reliable sources with non-trivial coverage? What about the other three articles? How about this article from today's New York Times (it appears she played in places like the Bitter End in the hometown of that paper)? Her music was twice featured on Dawson's Creek; any chance they showed that in your town? -MrFizyx (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [p.s. The show was set in Massachusetts, but filmed in Wilmington, North Carolina and shown internationally.][reply]
I never said the coverage wasn't non-trivial (holy triple negative, Batman!). They just don't establish any sort of notability beyond her own community. And college papers and alt weeklies are very local in what they cover - it would be a different story if we were talking about, say, Miami Herald or the Daily Tar Heel. The NY Times piece is good, and helps establish WP:N much better than any of the above links (though I don't think she still qualifies under WP:MUSIC). As for performing at the Bitter End - the place is basically like an amateur showcase, and hosts upwards of five or six acts a night. While there is a selection process, I don't think playing there demonstrates any sort of notability, any more than an aspiring comedian performing at a West Village open mic night. And the Dawson's Creek credit doesn't help that much too - there are plenty of television music by session musicians and artists who never release an album. We're not going to have an article about the guy who wrote the music for a Battlestar Galactica episode, even though it's a fairly big show and it's set in outer space and filmed in a studio in Los Angeles. I would focus on finding sources like the NY Times one, rather than relying on local papers and Dawson's Creek. --Mosmof (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to figure why the The Daily Tar Heel was so much better than The Lantern and then it finally sunk in that your point was that this wouldn't be local. :P I know of no notability criteria that require sources to be geographically diverse. OK then, here's one from Chicago. Not as helpful where reliability and utility for writing an article as concerned, but yet another locale:
While I think you could find more articles of this sort, but I'm not sure they would contribute much to improving the article.-MrFizyx (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the early concerns regarding copyvio and sourcing have been corrected, so the current AfD as I see it rests securely on questions of notability. Eauhomme (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Maybe I was a bit too hasty to tag this article as a speedy delete. It seems rather more complicated. This reuters article hints at some notability for her. If the copyvio has been removed, then I suppose this article should stay. Artene50 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not hasty at all. Actually, at the time I made my note about much of the facts being from the Cincinnati Enquirer, I had completely missed that it was a copyvio. I had previously read the Enquirer article (before the Wikipedia article) and had not realized that the Wiki article was indeed a cut and paste. Had I realized it was, I would have called for a Speedy Delete myself, and requested a rewrite of the article. Now that it has been done, I favor a keep, as was my original contention. Eauhomme (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So now that the article has been rewritten, where's the assertion of notability? There's no tour information, nothing on her awards, fanbase, or sales figures, and nothing substantiating the Dawson's Creek claim, etc. MSJapan (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The New York Times ran an obituary on Katie Reider in the A-SECTION of the July 24, 2008, edition. Two Katie Reider songs were used in "Dawson's Creek," at least one in Season 4. The official Dawson's Creek music site is offline for some reason, but the NY Times article provides attribution for the use of her songs on the TV show. Nomad 2 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an obit, but rather a local interest story as a result of. However, the attribution is one line, doesn't even give the song title, and there's really very little in the way of specifics about Reider's career in there. It's more about "the personal impact on the friends" than anything else. The vagueness of the info indicates that it clearly came from the interviewees, as oposed to outside research, so there's a real problem with WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article in the A-SECTION of the New York Times is fundamentally more than a "local interest story," given the global readership and the standards by which stories are judged newsworthy to appear in print. I don't think you can separate Katie Reider's notability from the theme of the article -- people die everyday, but articles such as this one are not commonplace. The Dawson's Creek attribution is in the OSU newspaper article. OSU's The Lantern is a credible newspaper at a leading journalism school.38.112.25.6 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (Nomad2)[reply]
Actually, the cited article ran in the B (metro) section. It is the Our Towns column, which deals with the New York City suburbs. The news peg is that she lived in Montclair, New Jersey - hence, there is local interest. Snakewriggle (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venues played[edit]

I haven't found an actual tour schedule her Reider and it seems she was the opening act in many cases here, but here are some shows that I dug up.

  • Aug 23 2003, Barrelhouse, Cincinnati, OH w/ The Katie Todd Band
  • Mar 11 2005, Club 202 Columbus, OH w/ The Katie Todd Band
  • Mar 12 2005, Gunther Murphy's, Chicago, IL w/ The Katie Todd Band
  • June 4 2005, Rhythm and Blues Cafe, Cincinnati w/ The Katie Todd Band
  • Aug 19 2005, Schuba's, Chicago, IL: Down The Line (Record Release) w/ Katie Reider
  • Dec 30 2005, Little Brothers Columbus OH: w/ The Katie Todd Band & The Floor Walkers
  • Jan 6, 2006, Schuba's, Chicago, IL: Miller Genuine Draft presents: The Onion AV Club's Justify Your Existence featuring...Katie Todd Band w/ The Katie Reider Band
  • Apr 8 2006, Acorn Theater, Three Oaks, MI w/ The Katie Todd Band

Many of these can be verified through primary sources (e.g. the Katie Todd Band site or the venue site). This only shows a few gig's outside of OH, but might be a start for someone to work through. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Katie Reider has performed live since the 1990s and was in the midst of an East Coast tour in 2006; the complete roster is far lengthier than one submitted here. Katie Reider also performed several times at a leading regional invitation-only showcase event, the MidPoint Music Festival.38.112.25.6 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (Nomad2)[reply]


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

The result was Delete due to lack of sources. —Sean Whitton / 13:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essence Of Praise[edit]

Essence Of Praise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This choir does not meet the notability guidelines and has multiple other issues. Tavix (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure about the award as an assertion of notability, but even if major, it, like the rest of the article is uncited and unverified. Therefore delete as no notability established.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 25 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 - Nabla (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stokes (entertainer)[edit]

Anthony Stokes (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist, possibly self-promotion of the user. Only source is a myspace page. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:13, 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 keep - vandal request. Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beta Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, appears non-notable. Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 20:31, 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 Keep. —Sean Whitton / 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No title. No release date. No tracklist. Sources are generally reliable, but don't say anything of substance. Crystal violation. Kww (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the lot into a new section on the Christina Aguilera page until title/tracklisting etc are available. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, and a little bit of WP:HAMMER for good measure.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's other kinds of information given here, enough to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd usually say this would be WP:CHRYSTAL, but the amount of sources documenting this article shows that this is WP:N. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Usually i say merge for these, but this one has a lot of info, and if the sources are true, it will be released pretty soon. Seems a lot of effort to merge, just to have to recreate.Yobmod (talk) 08:50, 25 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:SNOW) and Salt --JForget 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Donkey Kong Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's been nominated for deletion two times now. This incarnation is a one-liner with no sources (Crystal Kong?). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. We can have an article when there's more info (a title and release time would be nice, at the very least...) shoy (reactions) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt until this game is actually confirmed to be in development. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Salt from the history of this article. It was nominated for AfD three times and deleted all three times. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — The same user has created the same article after its deletion every time. Hence, I further recommend that some action be taken on said user. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see it being a legitimate redirect to Donkey Kong 3... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) July 22, 2008
  • Delete but hold the salt - I don't know that it would need a salting if the user is informed that it is inappropriate or if other action is taken in a similar vain. Otherwise, delete as crystal. I googled the more unique terms, which only came up with Video Game BoxArt, a fan site, so I'm guessing the name is also completely untrue. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no firm announcements about this title have been forthcoming, despite the article being recreated multiple times. As others have said, we shouldn't use rumour or speculation as reliable sources when creting articles about possible future creative works. I'm not sure if salting will help here, as the article has already been created under variations of the same title. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Non-notable, crystal balling. No sources that can verify this even exists, let alone provide any significant coverage. Probably needs some kind of protection to prevent this create/nominate/delete cycle from repeating itself over and over. Randomran (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as per above. Salt the Earth, otherwise we'll end up with a never ending cycle. --.:Alex:. 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Third time's a charm, looks like. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This article could have been speedily deleted (G4), but it doesn't matter now. MuZemike (talk) 00:02, 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 as unsourced. —Sean Whitton / 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Joseph Inman[edit]

Jerry Joseph Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Article asserts notability (thus failing the criteria for a speedy), but the only notability actually provided is a you-tube video series, which would fail WP:RS. Article also asserts 'internationally recognized speaker and negotiater (sic)' but fails to back this up. CultureDrone (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I removed the CSD A7 tag, however this seems to be a pretty much a non notable person. Google (a poor but in this case useful test) has nothing, and I struggle to see where any reliable sources can be found to establish anything beyone the minimal notablity assertion in the article as stands. M♠ssing Ace 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no other reference; article is very promotional (self-promotion? author is an SPA); but anyway, completely fails WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 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.  Sandstein  20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unencyclopedic and bordered on contentious. It has an incrediably small focus and I feel it is unnecessary to have an article on this topic. Are sexual assaults against Asian women, awful as they may be, worthy of their own article? No, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Are the motivations (primarily racist as this article seems to imply) that different from sexual assaults against white women, black women, Hispanic women, etc? Are Asian women not sexually assaulted anywhere else in the world?

The article appears to be a mixture of psychology - which could be merged with rape or racism- and a list of specific assaults. For a start, I doubt any of these women want the incident catalogged in an encyclopedia! Merge the relevent content with rape and rascism and delete the list. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nom barely mentioned merging. And only the relevant information, which there is none. It's all Original research and is essentially an essay. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 11:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:COATRACK. A 2.5 year old article that is full of arbitrary POV. Who defines what is an Asian lady? By the way, sex crimes against all women in the US might be much more notable than those against just African American, Hispanic or, in this case, Asian women. Why the ethnic breakdown here? Artene50 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horrible piece of coatracking that is unencyclopedic on so many levels it's untrue. Nothing to merge, delete it. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)Shame on you! So racist violence towards women is not important enough???173.54.13.112 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker Malloy[edit]

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

Non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. There are no independent sources, no album and not even signed to a record company. Two of the three members were semi-finalists on American Idol (season 7), so they are not even notable to have their own articles. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Adequate reference establishing notability was absent at the time of the nomination. Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyvyane Loh[edit]

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

Contested prod. Author of unclear notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article about Vyvyane Loh and don't really see why it shouldn't be here. She's a contemporary writer who's first book was very well received. I'm not sure if the deletion notice was put here by a bot or a person, but I don't really think it's warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassermn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 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. BJTalk 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Fish Gaming[edit]

Stoned Fish Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Author removed endorsed prod without explanation or editing to adress the concerns raised, which were that this group has no reliable sources to establish it's notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged Speedy A7 (Web). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you mean A7 (Corp) since the article is about a company that makes web content, not about the web content itself. I've changed the CSD tag. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry guys, speedy and PROD have already been tried, that's why we're here. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, apparently speedy deletion was declined, according to the article's history. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. No claims or indication of notability. No sources, reliable or otherwise. Pburka (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this looks like a WP:HOAX; if not, the article has no context and certainly no notability nor any proof thereof. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of doubt it is a hoax, as they do have a website with chat forums, etc, but even the administrators are listed as "newbies" at the forum, so probably it is just too new and unknown to qualify as notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 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: early closing per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you need an ISO Standard facility for Drive rebuilds[edit]

Why you need an ISO Standard facility for Drive rebuilds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Delete. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, right? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:18, 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.

Fourth_Studio_Album[edit]

The result was merge/redirect (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Fourth_Studio_Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystal Ball, no definate information available for such album yet Alankc (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Title is generic, confusing. Merge with Kelly Clarkson. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tag applied. Help us out here, 99? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With my magic crystal ball, I am going to predict that I will say to merge all relevant info with Kelly Clarkson --Numyht (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the relevant information is now in the Clarkson article, so I will attempt to redirect, as was already tried before. Really, I think the article can be deleted, but who wants to get Cluebot mad? On second thought, methinks to leave it until someone with better working knowledge (read:administrator) appears. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at this point, one supposes that an administrator must close this discussion before any actions are taken. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging. Article title is generic and could be anyone's fourth album. So I will assume from the title that the article is about The Beatles' fourth album. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MUSIC#Albums states "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag". As there is no confirmed release date this fails. Note that even information about albums must meet this criterion so should not even be placed in the parent article. Ros0709 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there has been nothing officially announced about the album, and all the information on this page is already on the main article. The only details, which are never definate, are comments by Clarkson herself, which does not mean any of the co-writers and songs will actually be used on the album. 76.109.54.18 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any sourced material to Kelly Clarkson. Alot of this is crystal ballery. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:21, 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 speedily Redirect to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night; objections can go through usual channels (non-admin closure). Nifboy (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Varda[edit]

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

Article gives no indication of its real-world notability. A Google search reveals no coverage outside forums discussing the game, and those don't suggest it's special enough to have attracted any mainstream sources. Was originally tagged for speedy with db-bio, which is clearly wrong. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaning towards Strong Delete Clearly isn't Notable --Numyht (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, however, understand the rationale behind redirection. I change to Weak Delete or Redirect. Rationale above remains the same. MuZemike (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say delete as there's no way that a powerful but otherwise unspectacular video game item would be better off with an independent article, but I'm for redirect after being beaten to this by Nifboy. An AfD isn't the only way to exercise editorial discretion, guys. I can't imagine that a redirect - either via asking on this article's talk page first or via doing it and leaving a msssage on the Castlevania game's talk page - wouldn't work. (With that said, a warning: People are still sore from an incident of en masse redirecting that the ArbCom eventually ruled to be an attempt to be an attempt to get that editor's way by force and bypass discussion when it was necessary. Doing more than an occasional redirection would be a bad idea.) --Kizor 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Nifboy.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 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 (non-admin closure). Article was Speedy Deleted. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Sumaili[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. ChaChaFut (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not only does this fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL, but it could have easily made up --Numyht (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Absolutely no assertion of notability, and tagged as such. Ros0709 (talk) 18:47, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness world records, 2009[edit]

Guinness world records, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see absolutely no need for Wikipedia to have articles on individual books in an annual series, rather than having a simple Guinness World Records article for the book in general. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reads like an ad. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guinness World Records, as the article for the 2008 edition currently does. Note the template at the foot of the page with entries for each year - this template may need amendment also. Ros0709 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like someone read off the Amazon.com page about all the cool things and posted it here. This installment isn't notable by itself. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has to stop. This is G11/G12 from Guinness. I redirected the 2008 edition by the same editor, but the 2009 edition and the template indicate the editor is just getting started. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eye-catching sunburst holographic cover? 100 percent new photographs? A pair of 3D glasses? Put this one down on page 315 under "Most pathetic advertisement". Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone ("this book will be most up-to-date so far" is rather priceless though) nancy (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure what else to add, everyone has made a good argument so far. Definitely looks like an advertisement to me. -- Atamachat 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisment. Redirect and add info to the series article.Yobmod (talk) 09:08, 25 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) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Tuia[edit]

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

Contested PROD, youth football player born in 1990 who fails WP:ATHLETE (no first team appearances in a fully professional league). Angelo (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not only does this fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL, but it could have easily made up --Numyht (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A quick Google search would have eliminated that possibility you know. ugen64 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, player clearly fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 20:38, 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. Wizardman 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joez Peralta[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. He was born in 1983, yet he has stats from playing in the mid-1980s. He also has a slew of MLB awards. Baseball-Reference has no record of this individual. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's either a hoax per stats from playing as a three-year old or at most a genuine article about a non-notable amateur player. Searching for "Joez Henriquez"+baseball [10] gives a few results from highschool basketball teams, but nothing approaching WP:ATHLETE standards. Note that the article's creator has a similar name to its subject. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The statistics listed, which have been on the page since it was created, are for Ken Griffey, Sr. It's a hoax. WAMCO1993 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I prodded a suspected hoax for soccer player Fabiano Lugli. It follows a pattern strikingly similar to Joez Peralta. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax, the only question is why it survived so long. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Blackngold29 20:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frozen precipitation commences earthward descent. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Fails WP:V anyway with no trace of him found outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Da mi basia (talk) 00:02, 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 No consensus. I'd relist, but I doubt anything more useful would come out of it: there has been plenty of discussion already. —Sean Whitton / 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New prog[edit]

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

This article is documenting a neologism. There are several sources on the page; however, only one article makes explicit use of the term as a genre name (the Times article) and even then only uses it as one of three possible terms. More often than not, the "genre" term is used in a happenstance manner (i.e. "this new prog rock..."). Moreover, many of the soures do not even use the term: the Entertainment Weekly article "Prog Rocks Again" gives various names for newer progressive rock bands and "New Prog" is not listed among them. Furthermore, the style itself is not notable, being a very limited example of recent progressive rock. DeletionAccount (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree that if all we have is a use of the term in a few places, but no article that explicitly tries to discuss this as an independent topic, then it isn't notable enough for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)I'm going to close this as a speedy keep (unless immediately prevailed upon by someone with a real account not to do so): it's clear to me that this is either going to be kept as-is (as seems likely, given the references, and the tenor of the discussion on the article talk page), or merged and redirected, either of which I'd be perfectly happy with. The nominator has already participated in a discussion that ought to have made this clear, before popping up here with his "deletion account". What bothers me more, however, is the blatant use of throwaway accounts for such purposes, which I really see no reason at all to give house room. Alai (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nominator's account seems perfectly 'real' to me: the only other page they've nominated for AfD was deleted unanimously and uncontroversially. Anyway, Carl's comment above seems to be arguing for a deletion. I'm puzzled as to why you would suggest a speedy keep. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Already apologized to Alai for this, but thought I'd include a note here for completeness: I failed to notice the "(ec)", which of course explains why Alai hadn't reacted to Carl's comment. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more detailed rationale for deletion. This article is an exercise in original research by synthesis. It collects uses of the term "new prog" in certain music articles about bands, and uses those quotes to make an article on new prog itself, rather than on the bands. The problem with this is clear from an OR point of view.

Moreover, there are no sources given that actually on the topic of "new prog" itself, as would be required for notability. Incidental mentions in other works don't suffice for WP:N here.

Detailed examination of the sources provided shows that many of them only use the phrase "the new prog". Examples:

  • "Musically and lyrically, the new prog is not your father's prog,"
  • "Evidence is mounting that we're on the brink of a New Prog Age,..."
  • "... popular music now encompasses a vast range of sounds and bands, from Slipknot's nu-metal to Atomic Kitten's teeny pop and the 'new prog' of Radiohead."
  • "The new prog? Post-rock? PRR enjoy a variety of labels that fail to encapsulate them and this single is no exception:..."
  • "But are the new proggies the true heirs to the thrones of Yes, Genesis and King Crimson?"
  • "The new prog doesn't yet have an official name (neo-prog? post-prog? prog 2.0?),..."

These articles are not trying to define something called "new prog"; they are just using the adjective "new" to describe the type of prog that certain bands represent. As a thought experiment, imagine if I wrote an article on the "next mayor of town" by accumulating all the news articles that use the term "next mayor".

The final quote above is particularly telling. If the music industry itself has not settled on a name for this genre (or, indeed, decided that it isn't just the next stage of prog rock itself), we are only speculating by collecting their quotes and making an article on "new prog". These things need to be settled in the real world before we try to write an article about them on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also 'New Prog Heroes', 'the so-called front-runners of the "new-prog" movement', which seem clearly non-incidental usages, especially the latter. Numerous genre tags are formed by this sort of "new", "post-" and similar malarkey, and obviously are often used in ways that the modifier could be read as being non-atomic. Sources that assert that this is a valid concept, but with a non-stable name are likewise not compelling arguments for deletion, just for noting said terminological variation. You make some valid points about the rigour of the current article text, none of which in my view comes close to a case for turning new prog into a redlink, which is the issue we're being asked to consider here. Bear in mind that we've significant internal linkage to the term as a genre descriptor, so we'd not be making a non-local change: if those descriptors are poorly-referenced, better to clean those up first. (On which good luck: I suspect the pecentage of musical articles in which the infobox-genre field coincides with a consensus of reliable sources (which see below) is somewhere between 'small' and 'statistically significant'.) As I've said, I'd be perfectly happy to merge into the main prog article and redirect, which would have been better accomplished by continuing the discussion there (rather than ignoring the point being made there, and using a throwaway SP account to go venue-shopping here). As I said there, the main issue here is not occurrence of the terminology, neologism, or referencing, but whether this is sufficiently separately notable and coherent a concept to merit a distinct article, as against a section or discussion in passing in progressive rock. Alai (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue is the independent notability of this concept, or lack of that notability. My point in the above quotes is that the sources in the article only mention the name of the article incidentally, and don't discuss "new prog" itself in any way. If this article deleted, that doesn't stop merging some text to the main prog rock article and redirecting the title there. Indeed, that's one possible outcome of the deletion discussion. The point of the AFD is to discuss the independent notability of this particular concept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could, of course, merge certain things into Progressive rock -- after all, there are a mountain of sources referring to these bands as prog rock -- but the question here is not whether these bands are prog rock or notable. The question is whether or not this article is documenting a neologism and non-notable style. More importantly, if you dig around, you'll find dramatically-different views about what new prog is. That is, at best, as noted below, "new prog" is just prog that is new. Is it Dillinger Escape Plan or is it Muse or is it Lightning Bolt or is it Porcupine Tree? These bands have much of nothing in common aside from era -- a common problem for neologisms. It is, of course, possible that the term will become notable, but for now it's just a term meaning prog rock that is new. As the EW article notes, "the new prog doesn't yet have an official name (neo-prog? post-prog? prog 2.0?)" -- no new-prog to be seen there, and an admission that the "new prog" genre here is just a prog rock revival similar to the original neo-prog. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Clearly mostly of them are primarily about an album or a band, but for example the Times "Prog rock? Just say yes" is clearly discussing it as a concept (at least in passing, before wallowing in general proggy nostalgia at some length). "Prog Rocks Again" is not dissimilar in that respect. Deletion is not part of the merge-and-redirect process, unless there's some compelling reason for expunging the edit history, which I think is clearly not going to be the case here. It's a possible outcome from AFD only in (dare I say) an "incidental" manner, by way of being a "keep with words to the wise" result. (Thus my frustration with the on-going having in effect been discussion inefficiently and foreseeably ineffectually moved to this location, and thence to several others.) Whether merged or not, some suitably-sourced hedging as to whether it is really is a 'distinct' genre, or just "recent instances" of prog (or whatever else), would seem to be appropriate. I don't think Wikipedia should be attempting to come to a definitive conclusion on that at present, and certainly this discussion can't hope to. Alai (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's not a question of whether or not there are new prog rock bands. There are, and there have been new prog rock bands for every decade since the original prog rock appeared. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; it will never decide what is or is not a distinct genre. Wikipedia merely documents, and the documentation here is dubious. We see 543 hits on Google News and maybe 50 of them refer to music (and of them, most talk about Entertainment Weekly's May 2005 feature which this article references and the rest talk about "new prog rock"). Not to wikilawyer, but from WP:NEO: "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Furthermore, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." And finally, "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." The point here is indeed to redlink the article. If there is notable information about progressive rock artists, it can be placed in the progressive rock article, but not under the heading of a neologism and not as a WP:OR genre. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carl's claim that there are no articles specifically on this genre is wrong: The Times article is one such, as Alai says above. Bondegezou (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make a point here. First, the real article minus obvious synthesis can be found on my user-talk. All I did here was remove unreferenced statements and references which did not mention the "new prog" genre or refer to the bands as members of the genre (most simply called them progressive rock).
And here's what's worse: the sources are dramatically incoherent. EW calls the music aggressive and technical, citing SOAD, Dillinger Escape Plan, Lightning Bolt, Coheed and Cambria, and The Mars Volta. They specifically refer to how aggressive the music is -- "[They] create incredibly complex and inventive music that sounds like a heavier, more aggressive version of '70s behemoths such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson." Now, take The Guardian Unlimited: "However much Radiohead and Muse may revile their "new prog" tag, their music is as aloof, intellectual and didactic as anything Pink Floyd or King Crimson produced." For those of you not aware, neither of those bands fit EW's description. Then we have the Times, which draws reference to old symphonic prog. Slightly inconsistent, perhaps? Is anyone talking about the same thing? Is it a genre or is it a period? Or is a it a "genre" that happens to exist because "new prog" is just too easy to inadvertently coin? 81.51.232.219 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All names for new music styles are inherently neologisms, and arguments about notability are nearly always original research by synthesis - you find the material, count the reliable sources, add them together, and discuss what they mean. In this case the sources add up to show notability for this sub-genre. It's two years old apparently, long enough to judge lasting notability. If there's a better or more widely used name than "new prog" we should just move the article. If we already have an article about this style / trend, then of course we should merge it. Conceivably this is just a sub-topic within prog rock, in which case it could be merged that way. That's a style question of how best to organize content here, not really a deletion issue. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain exactly what you found in the sources that led you to that conclusion? When I looked through them, all I saw were throwaway references, like the ones I quoted above. I couldn't find, for example, any article that actually gave any sort of definition of new prog. I agree names for new music genres are inherently neologisms, but sometimes there is at least a published article on the neologism. In this case, none of the references seemed to me to fit the burden of direct coverage in WP:GNG. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) :Follow-up - 122,000 ghits[11] and 500+ news hits,[12]. It looks like snowball notability. This one[13] (though not the most significant) indicates that music professionals use it as a real term to describe the style. This one[14] isn't necessarily a significant mention either but by classifying Radiohead in the group it takes the style back at least to 2001. This is significant coverage (an LA times article about the movement) and seems to date it from the early 90s.[15] Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source [16] is not a reliable source; we can't use a vending page as a source for an article with a straight face. More interesting is the final source you linked, as "significant coverage", which says "The new prog-rock movement began in the early '90s, right around the time that Nirvana was making punk safe for mall rats. " As I was saying above, it appears it is just using new as an adjective for discussing developments in progressive rock, and is not about an independent subject called "new prog". This is the issue with using search hits to try to measure notability - both "new single" and "new mayor" would also get a lot of news hits, but I doubt that they are notable concepts either.
        I think this article is trying to be something like British invasion, discussing a specific period in music history. But just as the British invasion was only recognized in hindsight, this topic can't be written about today before art historians have had a chance to write about it first. That's the fundamental issue here - we're trying to predict the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that you mention it, the article makes mention of the difference between New Prog and Neo Prog, which is a period movement in the 80s following the decline of popularity of traditional prog rock. Still, I think the article is describing what is supposed to be a new genre in itself. My first encounter with this term was actually with the Mars Volta article. However, Mars Volta isn't mentioned in the article, and neither was Radiohead before I noted that one cited source was talking about bands related to Radiohead. If it's a genre, it's not an established one. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Undecided here: Carl makes a persuasive argument that most of the offered sources are using the phrase the way one might 'new mayor' and don't imply an actual genre of any notability. The Guardian article [17] is the one exception, which seems to suggest that it is a legitimate phrase in its own right (but it hardly tells us anything useful to build an article from except that Muse and Radiohead are examples). If I saw a few more sources sounding like that one, but which actually described the genre, I'd be convinced it should stay; otherwise, I don't think so since we can't be sure we're not attributing characteristics to 'New Prog' that some journalist just happens to have mention in connection with recent prog-rock. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, this is "situation normal" in music journalism. By the time an alleged genre has a useful or coherent definition, or even agreed-upon terminology, it's likely no longer trendy enough to be worth writing about. That a couple of the articles advance different terminology for the same thing (or some similar thing, at least, given the denotational fuzziness at work here) is some sort of evidence for the notability of the concept, rather than simply the precise phrase, which argues against the "incidental construction" interpretation (at least to some extent). Alai (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the British invasion is an example where a past movement has sufficient notability to still warrant an article. We aren't trying to mirror the latest trends here - we're trying to reflect what has already been established by reliable sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times article is clearly describing a genre and the term is used distinctly from simply describing recent prog rock bands (e.g. its usage clustering around certain bands and not other bands). Bondegezou (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Responded at bottom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been in existence and actively edited for over 2 years since I first created it. It has equivalents in the German and Polish-language Wikipedias. It has numerous citations: while some of these may be ambiguous in whether they mean "new prog" as a distinct genre name or just prog that is new, articles in The Times and The Guardian, clearly reliable sources, as well as the Pop Matters review certainly use the term as a genre label. There has been a fair amount of discussion at Talk:New_prog and Talk:New_Prog about this article that I would recommend people in this debate read those Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to pass WP:GNG, the articles would have to directly discuss the label, not just use it once in passing before moving on. The core of the OR#SYNTH problem is taking these passing mentions, which don't actually say what "new prog" is, and trying to make an article from them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't read Polish, but the German came from the English Wikipedia (translated edit summary was "Stub, from English Wikipedia" for any non-German-speakers here). It is also but 2 1/2 months old. The Polish one seems to be a more direct translation from the English wiki page, retaining all formatting. Since they all originated here, I don't think it's valid to consider them at all. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can I clarify? 81.51.232.219, are you the same as DeletionAccount? That two other Wikipedias felt this article was worthy of inclusion seems evidence of something! I would also point out the large number of articles that link to New prog.[18] I think that again argues against accusations of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this edit serves as confirmation of that, as well as comments with a similar implication elsewhere. (To say nothing of the seamlessly-splenetic comments in my own direction from the two.) Alai (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, to be clear, I am indeed the nominator of this. I cannot debate using the account because it was blocked for apparently looking like an administrator name. As for the articles that link, how about j-pop albums from L'Arc-en-Ciel and various other bands which aspire to the "new prog" title (who are Mr. So & So and why are they new prog when new prog didn't exist?) and so on. You have lists of genres and redirects related to the post-prog article which was deleted and some stuff related to this AfD, but for the most part the references to the article are limited to a few bands and their albums as well as genre lists and see-also mentions, like on the Post-rock page. The pages referencing New prog are very limited in scope. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What other types of pages would you expect to link here than articles on bands, albums and related genres? That a large number of pages do link here (~90), the consequence of many different editors, seems of some relevance to the case that this is a healthy Wikipedia article. If L'Arc-en-Ciel should not link here -- I've no idea; I've never heard of them -- then edit that article accordingly. Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sourced ones. First, we discount general discussion pages like the WP:Articles for deletion/Post-prog article and those others which do not actually source them. Then we remove the 7 bands listed here and their albums (about 40 pages total). What's left? L'Arc-en-Ciel albums listed as new prog, all additions to pages done by an IP editor in one day (it just happens that nobody ever questioned it). This is a common problem with tags like this: a random editor goes into rarely-visited pages and places his opinion (no sources needed) and it is never questioned. Mr. So & So had this link in its original inception by an SPA called Mrsoandso which had its user page purged because it was an advertisement for the band and the page was filled with copyvio. Lord only knows what good that article is. You see, the point is that, besides the few bands listed on the page, there are not good pages linking to New prog. Lists are almost never good articles, invariably focusing on quantity over quality (and every time I try to get a list to start citing, I get complaints about it). That leaves only see-also mention at various other pages, mostly added by IPs and dramatically contradictory. Did you know that Los Hermanos, People in Planes, and Battles are all examples of New prog? Nor do the bands, as none of their pages link to them, but the Indie rock page cites them as examples. Herein lies the problem: the genre is smoke and mirrors, so people add whatever they feel like adding (I think this sounds like Coheed and Cambria, which somebody said was, like, the New prog, so I'm, um, adding it). 81.51.232.219 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to comments above: the Times article [19] is indeed about a genre - the genre of "prog rock", not the genre of "new prog". The article mentions the phrase "new prog" only twice. The first time, they say "The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne, or crazy prog, which is a funny title, but not terribly descriptive. " The second time, they say, "There is a huge amount of Schadenfreude to be derived from watching the current crop of music rags trying to wax appropriately enthusiastic about the new prog without mentioning the P-word too often.". The word "the" in the second quote there makes it clear that they are using new as an adjective, and are not envisioning "new prog" as a genre on its own. This is exactly the "new mayor" issue I mentioned before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first use is clearly as a genre name; that there are synonyms doesn't detract from that. The second use looks like a genre name too: surely one wouldn't have the "the" if one was just talking about prog that was new? Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to differ. You might note that the title of the article is "Prog rock? Just say yes" and not "New prog? Just say yes". A similar and equally silly synthesis of the article would be "New prog is the sound of 2006 and is incredibly bright." The context of the use of "new prog" is in regards to upcoming commercially-successful bands in the progressive rock genre, a genre which has long dodged commercial success. The article goes in all ways about this: "There is a huge amount of Schadenfreude to be derived from watching the current crop of music rags trying to wax appropriately enthusiastic about the new prog without mentioning the P-word too often." Similarly, he says "[The Mystery Jets] sound like a prog primer" and spends the entire article discussing new bands of the progressive rock genre and their relation to the 70s prog rockers, not a new sound or a new genre. And furthermore, the use of "the" actually denotes that it is not a genre -- he is speaking of the new prog rock (i.e. the prog rock that is new). Were he speaking of a genre, he'd leave out the article -- English conventions say that proper nouns displace the article (for example, you say "John" and "Germany", not "The John" or "the Germany", but you say "the man" and "the house" rather than just "man" or "house". He is very tangibly referring to the new prog, not to a genre called "new prog". 81.51.232.219 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first usage in the article is clearly as a genre name, so the details of the second usage are somewhat moot, but I think your application of grammar is questionable. We talk about the New Romantics, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first usage, however, only refers to what someone else had said. It doesn't significantly or directly discuss "new prog" as a subject. Where is the "significant coverage" required for WP:GNG? What article directly addresses the subject of "new prog", rather than just discussing prog rock that happens to be new, as the Times article does? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first mention is just of what someone else has called it, as CBM mentioned. It's a mention-in-passing, and the rest of the article discusses prog rock. That does not meet the requirements set forth by WP:NEO of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." We just have one too many articles describing "new progressive rock" and none describing the genre "New Prog". Furthermore, the lack of established notability results in massive confusion as to what this genre is -- is it aggressive hard rock like Dillinger Escape Plan or is it slower prog rock like Muse? Was it established in the early 1990s or in 2001 with System of a Down? What the Sam Hill is this genre? If we don't have reliable sources on the subject, Wikipedia has no business trying to synthesize an article out of it. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Times article is not about prog rock in general, but about a particular group of bands that it lumps under the name "new prog", ergo it is an article about new prog and satisfies WP:GNG. Most of the citations in the article agree on a common set of bands (like Mew, PRR, Coheed, Muse). If there is some disagreement among sources as to the genre's boundaries, then the article should reflect that, but it is WP:OR for us to start judging the genre in that manner! Several of the citations only make passing reference to the term but that's because they are there to support the inclusion of particular bands in the list (surely an admirable thing in a Wikipedia article). Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Times article itself never calls the bands "new prog". It calls them "the new prog", in which "new" is just an adjective, and it says other people have used the label "new prog" - but without knowing who those people are or exactly what they said, we don't know if the other people also used "new" as an adjective. The Times article never uses "new prog" as if it were an established genre. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's review the text of the article, shall we? First the title and subtitle. "Prog rock? Just say yes" -- nothing about New prog. Subtitled: "For decades the ancient behemoths of progressive rock were the butt of critics' jokes. But thanks to new bands like the Mystery Jets, the sound is back". This suggests that prog rock is back. No, not a new genre. Prog rock. Let's for a moment ignore the small text and continue to the body of the article. The editor begins talking... about progressive rock. Not about "new prog". The first paragraph is about the stigma surrounding the use of the word "prog". Makes use of "the new prog" in a way indicating that new is an adjective rather than part of a proper noun. The next paragraph: "they sound like a prog primer". A litany of references to old prog rock. Still no "new prog". Next two paragraphs: same story. More references to old prog, still no "new prog". Then two wishy-washy paragraphs. Next, speaking about the return of progressive music: "Rees sees a progression towards progressive..." and so forth. Now, another grand line clearing the air: "It was just such an environment that led to the rise of prog first time round." That very, very, very clearly says that he's talking about progressive rock and not "new prog". He re-iterates this with "[T]he Jets will have to rely on the sort of audience that once wandered around with records conspicuously tucked under their arms." And on and on and on about new progressive rock bands and their relation to old progressive rock bands (i.e. "the sound is back"). Thus, I can only conclude that your entire premise for the article hinges on the small text at the top of a Times article which is rather vague to begin with. So let's clear that little hurdle, shall we? "The sound of 2006 will be terribly bright." Uh-huh. "It will have practised its instruments hard, will have taken lessons, and will have assimilated all the best influences from the classics, rock, jazz and pop." Yes, apparently. "And lo! The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne..." The mention in passing of "new prog" which is not specifically referring to a genre called "New Prog" but rather to the label "new prog" meaning new progressive rock. Continuing, "...or crazy prog, which is a funny title, but not terribly descriptive. There is nothing crazy about prog." This once again suggests that he's talking about progressive rock. Not a new genre. Just progressive rock. So breaking this whole thing down into its constituent parts, your justification for calling this a main source which passes WP:GNG is a mention in passing of something which may or may not even be a proper reference to a genre at all? That's quite a leap of faith, sir. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Other articles refer to "new prog" as a genre, so that is not in doubt. Knowing "new prog" is used as a genre name, The Times article is clearly about that genre. Interpreting the article in a vacuum, in the absence of the knowledge that "new prog" is used as a genre descriptor, is misleading. The article is about a group of bands that others also lump together and associate with the "new prog" tag; it is not an article about modern progressive rock bands in general. "New prog" is clearly related to older progressive rock, so of course older prog is mentioned in the article. As I have repeatedly said, "new ..." is a terrible way of naming things because of the confusion it causes, but we don't get to pick names: Wikipedia can but report how reliable sources are using terms. Bondegezou (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So you're saying that, since other articles may refer to "new prog" as a genre and this article talks about bands associated with this genre (in their relation to progressive rock), the article must be about "new prog" and thus serve as your source? That would absolutely be WP:SYNTH. There is no indication that the Times article is about "new prog" but rather merely about new progressive rock groups (i.e. the sound is back). These bands just happen to be the bands achieving some scale of commercial success, which, as the article details, has eluded progressive rock for decades. It would make sense, then, to write about the bands bringing prog back into the mainstream (which he does focus on in the middle of the article -- "It was just such an environment that led to the rise of prog first time round." and "Is there any reason to hope for a similar golden age in 2006?"). Long story short, still fails WP:NEO. --Same anon as before, new IP 83.203.183.112 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the bands mentioned as belonging to this supposed 'genre' would be mortified to be included. None of them claims to have invented the genre, this being done by some supposed music journalist. To be clearer, none of the bands mentioned are ground-breaking in terms of the music they play, simply following on old formulae based on the 12-note 4/4 scale. Indeed, most of the bands quote 70's influences, which was l a long time before some bright spark came up with the term 'new prog'Sam Smallish 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsmallish (talk • contribs)
    • Criticism of the genre is irrelevant. Your claim that the bands concerned would be mortified to be included is questionable (PRR and Mystery Jets seem happy with the tag), but again irrelevant as opposed to use of the term in reliable sources (e.g., for comparison, Robert Fripp still denies that King Crimson are progressive rock, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia following reliable sources and describing them as such). Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Preface: Same anon as before, yet another IP. I'm with Bondegezou on this one. While I still think the page deserves deletion, what anyone thinks of the label is actually irrelevant. The review listed for Oceansize is quite critical of the style (welcome back, prog; how we have missed the media's distaste for you!). It is an objective observer's opinion which typically defines a genre. Season's End would like to call itself progressive symphonic metal, but they are very rarely regarded as such. Nonetheless, I deviate from the subject. The problem with the page is that it synthesizes sources into an article. "New prog" may be used in some circles to refer to certain progressive rock bands, but the term has not caught wide use, as evidenced by the failure to find a source about the genre (except, maybe, the Rhapsody page which sources itself to this Wikipedia article). More importantly, the message at the top is quite telling: (sometimes called "Nu prog" or "post-prog"). Look around and you might find minimal coverage for either of these tags, but what you do find is classic stuff: urbandictionary in its infinite nonsense lists a bundle of prog metal bands, as does this little disaster. If there was any confusion about what this "genre" is, research will only amplify it. Again, that's standard operating procedure for neologisms. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might also be worthy of note that many articles refer to these "new prog" bands as "progressive rock". New York Daily News reports: "Prog-rock has been revived of late in bands like Coheed and Cambria and the Mars Volta. Such acts rely on home recording and the Internet to keep control of what they do, from conception through sales and touring." Just throwing more wood on the fire. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 02:17, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Junkies[edit]

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

Two main problems:

  1. The article is a collection of quotes, making it very poorly written and extremely close to copyright infringement
  2. The only independent reliable source is Staten Island Live, which is a local paper, so I don't think the group meets music notability guidelines.Wafulz (talk) 15:49, 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 Redirect to Bouncer (doorman). Hut 8.5 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Door picker[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article based on the following:
The opinions: (1) Not notable. If it is deemed notable through reliable sources, it should be merged with Bouncer (doorman); (2) Not Encyclopaedic.
The facts: (a) (as part of the pre-nomination criteria) the only direct incoming links are 3 redirects, all of which were created by the editor upon article creation. One of these redirects is linked on 1 article, but an in-text citation would work better; (b) there is no revision history (not a good reason in itself, of course, but it adds to the overall nomination); (b) Unverifiable—the current "source" (the external site) leads to the message "The system cannot find the file specified." A search of this site revealed no guide exists. Plus, as the Ministry of Sound is one of the "more exclusive clubs", all info has been obtained from a primary source. — Skittleys (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jезка and Esradekan --Numyht (talk) 17:01, 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.  Sandstein  20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Going through AFD because being a Wikipedia version may make it ineligible for A7 Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This will go on the Main Page once launched anyway. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain what ineligible for A7 means??, and it's unsourced, because the only news about wikipedia arz, was only from wikimania 2008, which I am in now, so if anyone has more sources, they should expand it anyway
  • Blanchardb, you can't just delete an article because you know that it'll be done anyway when its time comes, I made a step, somebody would go further, but that's all I have now, I request changing the flag into not citing my sources or references instead of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.165.76 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or redirect to List of Wikipedias. We have deleted or redirected other articles about foreign-language editions of Wikipedia which did not establish notability through coverage in independent sources. In this case, the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has apparently not even been established yet, just announced. It would be very hard for a web site which has not even been launched to establish notabiity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this only means you should flag it as a futuristic event or product, anyway, if someone knows how to do it,, just do it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraiem (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tagged it as a {{future product}} because that seemed to be the most appropriate "future" tag available. But I still don't know if this will be a notable web site once it is fully established; some language editions of Wikipedia are notable, and others are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and maybe you're right, anyway it's up to the community to decide a popular wiki than another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraiem (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:46, 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 and redirect. —Sean Whitton / 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJ (Family Guy)[edit]

RJ (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely minor "Family Guy" character. JuJube (talk) 13:44, 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 no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underbanked[edit]

Underbanked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete simple dicdef and neologism. Ave Caesar (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable neologism with a point of view--Pmedema (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary; non-notable term Jезка (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a dicdef per User:Ave Caesar --T-rex 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the current article is certainly a mess with NPOV problems, this is an emminently notable topic. Simple google searches show that this is a widely used term on an international level, along with it's alternate terms - unbanked and underserved. Rather than letting this become a snowball before any attempts at improving have been made, I will start on a rewrite of the artcle, although one of the other names may be a better choice. Also note that underserved was previously transwikid as a dicdef. Jim Miller (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - even with the rewrite now, it is an uncited, unreferenced dictionary entry. --Pmedema (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a stub with much potential since this topic is quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article went through a rewrite at 06:31, 20 July 2008 by Colonel Warden. It's now fairly well sourced, though it would be nice to find some good web references. I still feel like unbanked and underbanked are clear neologisms, but these references might help make an acceptable article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:50, 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. Hut 8.5 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward petrossi[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E of a California store owner who foiled a robbery and got a burst of publicity. No WP:RS coverage since. Prod disputed on the grounds that he has become a YouTube phenomenon. No references to back this up. No evidence of lasting interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 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 as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackSky Productions[edit]

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

I've never heard of this artist or label. Article reads like an advertisement. Google search turns up nil. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete as non-notable. Google search for "BlackSky Productions" gets 8 hits, most of which related to wikipedia, non of which indicate notability. 4 google hits for "BlackSky Records", again non of which indicate notability. No google groups, or blog search hits, or on google news. Google search for "John Stymiest" only gets 36 hits, all of which seem to be either family history sites, or about unrelated people of the same name, or related to the wikipedia article. Silverfish (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:47, 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 as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IKenj[edit]

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

Although the article quality is good, the subject doesn't seem notable enough; he has still not succeeded MySpace fame. StaticGull  Talk  12:35, 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 per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Chatterjee[edit]

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

article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject is notable and sources are out there, they just need to be added to the article. [20]
    • The preceding comment is from Radioinfoguy.
    • That's not a reliable source. It's his biography from the radio station which employs him. In all likelihood he wrote it himself. I'm having trouble finding any independent, reliable sources for this article. Pburka (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty notable per third party sources and articles. ~ priyanath talk 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable author and journalist. Dylan (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO insists that verifiable 3rd party references be present in the article. Not that we think they are out there, not that we think we've heard it somewhere. References have got to be there. This article has none. WP:BURDEN tells us that it's the editor who added the information's responsiblity to ensure that verifiable references are there and any information without verifiable references must be removed, particularly in the case of living persons. If other editors wish to step in and add these references, that's great too, but assuming there are 3rd party references available isn't enough.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'I think you misunderstand WP:BIO. That guideline sets out guidelines for determining whether a topic is notable, which is not a temporary property: a subject is and will always be notable, or it is not. References are evidence as to notability, not the notability in and of itself. A subject can be notable without having references supporting that assertion, which is what the case is here, in my opinion. Dylan (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are correct that references provide evidence of notability. The references in this article do not provide convincing evidence of notability. Has this journalist received any awards or other honors that could be more easily referenced with a 3rd party?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Googlenews. References should be added to article. Part of the problem here is that with dozens of articles on Indian topics listed for deletion in the past week, interested and knowledgable users haven't had a chance to improve the articles. Other users, for reasons which remain unclear, are simply listing dozens of articles for deletion with no effort to investigate or improve them. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those news articles are by the subject. Journalists are notoriously difficult to find references to on Google news, since their name appear in bylines so often. Pburka (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the radio station bio is a sufficiently reliable source, it is basically KPFA and Pacifica speaking. The question here would be its independence, and thus how much it might go toward proving notability. But it's not really necessary for notability, which is mainly based on things available from other sources. However, it is useful in writing an article on him as it does take some work finding sources. It is reasonably independent, as he does not run the station. Perhaps less independent is this bio, where he holds a higher position, but still reasonably reliable and not making any extravagant assertions. The same question came up recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pollard, see DGG's comments at the end. Since Pollard runs his institute, it was even a harder case. Here's some biographical info from the Lannan foundation, which gave Chatterjee an award. This flyer has a pic, as does this NY Times ad by that foundation. There's also some data here and at one of his publishers.John Z (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Employer or worse self written biographies are not sufficiently reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability tells us "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons"--Rtphokie (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Rtphokie is absolutely right on these sources, except that an employer-written source should be sufficiently reliable to prove the subject's employment by that employer (but nothing else). - Dravecky (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1)The KPFA bio is not a self-published source by the usual meaning. Look at the earlier AfD I referred to. 2) In any case, SPS is OK, even for BLP, if it's by the person himself WP:V says "as third-party sources" - he isn't a third party. See WP:BLP, sections 3.1 and 3.3.John Z (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Don't ignore the final point, "the article is not based primarily on such sources," since before I added a few third-party sources this article was indeed based primarily on those self-published sources. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the author of three books and a journalist. Subject is frequently interviewed by national newspapers, magazines, and television programs as an expert in his field. Google searches are actually hampered by how often his name appears in print. Even so, I have found a few useful sources that go to verifiability and notability and added them to the article. (I must say I was quite surprised to find a long argument over the kind of sourcing that would be acceptable while the article in question had precisely zero in-line citations. Fix it, then argue about it, folks.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is more than confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 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.  Sandstein  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neoism (political ideology)[edit]

Neoism (political ideology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot quite call this original research because it references a website. But I suspect that the website was created by the author of this article. Non-notable new theory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect – any significant points to Neoism It will fit well there. ShoesssS Talk 12:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dissagree with redirect... The name implies a disambiguation page. Fails WP:N
  • Delete unless independant references indicating notability can be found. Edward321 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable for lack of independent sources. Don't redirect to Neoism which is something quite different. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though perhaps not quite mainstream or entirely verifiable information, maybe this article (and its author) should be given a chance at elaboration and further explanations... Besides, what is being advocated does not sound so unfavorable or absurd anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxari (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Paxari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


First of all, I merely contributed to the creation of the website and Neoism is NOT a theory it is an IDEOLOGY. Second of all, one of Wikipedia’s so-called editors misspelled Independent as “inpedpendant “, if this is the intellectual caliber of the individuals judging my article then I have certainly lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia.

  • Delete. No reliable sources present in the article, and I can't find any myself. (To limit false positives, I searched for neo +supravea +vajulad +jaleex +altika +"tyco-dai" +isis; these are apparently the seven basic principles of Neoism.) AnturiaethwrTalk 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:50, 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 as a hoax/vandalism page (CSD G3). The article was first created as a vanity page, and when it was deleted, the user chose to recreate it as a hoax page. This is getting tiresome. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis[edit]

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

Apparent hoax article about someone called Justin Davis claiming, amongst other things, that he was in the Rolling Stones for two weeks. The article includes a picture of Mick and Keith with the subtitle identifying Mick as this Justin Davis fellow. The references and Google do not lend any support to the claims. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if this has been done before - User talk:Elkman#And another.... I like the idea of a "lead bassist" though. Does that make Dick Taylor rhythm bassist? Who played tenor tambourine? Or baritone maracas? Would this hit CSD G4 for recreation of deleted material?Booglamay (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as hoax. Not mentioned in sources. Jезка (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nonsence article. Someone please G3 tag it... Obliterate... Poof! --Pmedema (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the claims were true, being with the band for two weeks before it made it big is not a sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute idiocy. JuJube (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax --T-rex 15:08, 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 no consensus to do anything in particular with this, so defaulting to keep. —Sean Whitton / 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica King[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jessica King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a dancer whose claim to fame is that she was a contestant on a reality show, had to withdraw due to injury, but "aims to grow as a dancer and an artist through her experience within So You Think You Can Dance". PROD removed with the comment "I think everyone who makes it to the top ten and joins the SYTYCD tour meets the notability threshold". I don't agree, so I bring it here for other views. There is an earlier AfD for this name, but not the same person. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Surely if this page has to be deleted, then every other page of previous and existing so you think you can dance contestants has to be deleted.
I see nothing wrong with the Jessica King page, and if I see something I feel unnecessary on the page it can easily be edited/deleted.
It basically is there to inform people of this contestant, just like many other contestant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.67.169 (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved the above remarks here from the talk page where they were posted, and interpreted them as a "Keep" !vote. My reply is that having some articles about non-notable reality show contestants is not a good reason for adding more - see WP:WAX. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that coverage really falls under the heading of "People notable only for one event" - see WP:BIO1E. Merge to a list of contestants could be the way to go. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 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 no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I came in for some criticism for speedily deleting a similar list for the University of Southern Mississippi on the grounds of it being a group with no notability. For me, groups and lists are not mutually exclusive, and I consider these articles are merely groups of societies that have a membership.

I see no encyclopaedic value here. Whilst the fraternities and sororities may in themselves be notable, the fact that they exist at a given university is not. From a non-US point of view, it's a little like "List of sports clubs at University of Kent" or "List of social clubs at Essex University" or "Motoring clubs for Civil Servants". I can accept that an individual fraternity or sorority at an individual university could be notable, but there is no indication that this is the case for any of those listed here. Deb (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already huge. I think you have a point with the notability thing, but merging into the main article is problematic in itself. RayAYang (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment. It sounds perfectly encyclopedic when writing about a college to explain which fraternities have chapters there. For our non-US editors, most of these organizations exist at the national level and have different missions or a religious or cultural basis. From being on a similar AFD a while back, it seems a better solution is to create a "Greek Life" template instead of a list, so you'd have this unobtrusive box listing all the organizations ( by Greek letter ) under headings such as which council they belong to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we assume that the fraternities themselves are notable (certainly I've never seen any serious claim to the contrary), and obviously we assume that the University of Texas at Austin is notable; why is it not reasonable to provide a list of which fraternities are active at that university? --Stormie (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase that slightly, MacDonalds, KFC, Subway and Pizza Hut are notable; New York, Vancouver, London, Paris are notable, so we should have 'List of fast food outlets in New York', 'List of fast food outlets in Vancouver', etc.? (actually, WP:NOTDIR explicitly says no to these) -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Whilst the fraternities are notable as a whole, and the university is notable, In my opinion this list should only list those that are notable for being at the University of Texas at Austin; I'd suggest that these could be treated in a similar manner to franchises -- i.e. the franchise (or fraternity in this case) can be notable, and the location can be notable, but it is rare that the fraternity in the location is notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. In addition, none of the other US Universities I've checked have an equivalent list article. Maybe this list could be better handled in University of Texas at Austin (not necessarily bulleted) as well as the existing lists such as List of Phi Gamma Delta chapters. -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discriminate list of notable organizations at a notable institution. Is a list by theme as defined by WP:LISTS. The existance of each organization at this campus may need citations for verification, but that is a cleanup issue, not grounds for an AfD. The list is discriminate, entirely composed of notable entities, and useful. Jim Miller (talk) 20:28, 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. Ty 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Alanenpää[edit]

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

A photographer in his twenties who seems to have done well in minor contests, who has pronounced religious views, who has occasionally got into some kind of dispute about religion, but about whom I can find very little information. There's a claim that he's published a book, but Google has no mention of it other than in this article, and apparently it has no ISBN, which sounds odd. Prod added earlier, prod removed. I hope that he has a great future, whereupon he may have an article. But I think an article is premature. Hoary (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be a minor photographer at best - there's no indication how big these photographic contests were. Also there's a possibility of self-promotion of the subject - the man's religious views seem to correspond with youtube member aadesig, who shares his unusual name with the creator of this article. So basically, this is someone mistaking Wikipedia for myspace. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alanenpää's two major achievements don't count for much, and everything else admittedly counts for less. Fortunately for Arto, Jesus loves. Pinkville (talk) 22:48, 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 deleted. Article blanked by original author. -- Longhair\talk 09:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bedes Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School[edit]

St. Bedes Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not suitible for wikipedia. Chafford (talk) 08:38, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page/Archive 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar-e-Arqam Schools[edit]

Dar-e-Arqam Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable educational establishment Chafford (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a school with 74 branches is definitely notable. What the article needs is a massive cleanup of its POV and advertising, but those aren't deletion matters, they're solvable. Some independent External links would help, too. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's 74 of these schools throughout Pakistan, that certainly sounds notable. Article needs to be fleshed out with references to independent secondary sources. Wikipedia needs to improve coverage of Pakistan. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a nomination that lacks merit. Groups of schools, as with school districts, are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to assume that the nomination was based on the mistaken assumption that this was a single school, and ask for a snow closure. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 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 Speedy deleted, no content. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of subdatasets in ireport[edit]

Advantages of subdatasets in ireport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Chafford (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: should this be speedily deleted, just being one line of text? Wongm (talk) 08:58, 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 deleted, nn bio. -- Longhair\talk 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinno B. Marquez[edit]

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

Once again, notability issues. Chafford (talk) 08:26, 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) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaiji Ramesh Bhai Oza[edit]

Bhaiji Ramesh Bhai Oza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability issues, and I feel that this article is using wikipedia as a religious soapbox. Chafford (talk) 08:18, 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.

Eric camerota[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), invoking WP:SNOWBALL as Olympic competition is obviously notable. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) I filed this AFD note at 08:15 AM UK time, it is now 19:50 PM UK time, and consensus is to keep. Chafford (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub, provides no information and the formatting went awry. Chafford (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - US team member in the 2006 Winter Olympics. Notable enough for me. Article was nominated for deletion just 1 minute post creation. Please spare a thought for article expansion. -- Longhair\talk 09:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Participating in the Olympics is ample sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note anonymous user removed the AfD notice in this edit. JuJube (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ATHLETE says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", and there's no way an Olympic athlete is less notable than that. Neither 'stub' nor 'the formatting went awry' is a good argument for deletion, and 'provides no information' after one minute is far too eager: sure enough, after another two minutes the original author fixed the formatting and began adding more info. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:39, 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) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in Music[edit]

2009 in Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Who can be sure that what is written in this article is solid fact and not just speculation, it is for that reason I request deletion of this article. Chafford (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since Wiki isn't a crystal ball. Bidgee (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and resurrect closer to the time (and with a lowercase m). 2009 doesn't even link to it. I checked one EL at random (the Bob Dylan/Jack White album) only to find that they aren't even definitely recording together yet. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- crystal ball gazing. - Longhair\talk 09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL still applies --T-rex 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is an overused mantra around here. Crystal does not apply to every single article about a future event. Crystal only applies to unverifiable speculation, which means that verifiable speculation is a valid Wikipedia topic. Therefore, if there are reliable sources that have coverage about speculation is it wrong to apply Crystal to that speculation. If some of the listings in the article don't have sources than removed them, but don't apply Crystal to everything that is upcoming. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is very little if any reliable sources within the list/article in which WP:CRYSTAL isn't over used since it's just speculation.
  • Keep. I agree WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as the releases and other information here appears to be sourced (and any that aren't sourced can be removed without harming the article. 2009 is only 5 months away, so we're not dealing with undue speculation. If there's a reliable source cited, then the album listed -- whether titled or not -- is scheduled for release. That does not necessarily mean that there is sufficient information yet for individual articles, but for listing in this venue, this is perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said above it's just poorly sourced speculation which is unlikely to have reliable sources since they would have been used already. Bidgee (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each and every source is "poor"? I don't think so. There will be music in 2009, so there's gonna be an article 2009 in Music just like there's an article 2008 in music. Why waste time deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated in a few months? Just edit this article and removed all information that is poorly sourced. If most of the article is poorly sourced, than remove most of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we're in 2008 so why shouldn't there be a 2008 article? 2009 is another story. Sources are from fan sites, forums, artists own site which isn't a third-party source and yes there is 2 or 3 possible reliable sources. Then most songs within the list/article has Untitled which is rather unuseful. Bidgee (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't say peep if all the content of the article is removed save a few entries. I would do it myself, if I would know something about music. I know nothing about music, and have no idea which of the sources are reliable and which aren't. The fact that songs are "untitled" should not make a difference. If right now there's informative and sourced information, it should be included. We don't have to know everything about a given subject before adding it to Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is built piecemeal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, there will inevitably be a 2009 in Music article. There will also inevitably be a 2050 in Music article, provided Wikipedia lasts that long. That doesn't mean we should even begin to think about making an article for it. While 2009 may be only 6 months away and 2050 40 years, the perceived inevitability of an article's existence is not justification for its existence. True, Wikipedia is built piecemeal. However, there is a reason that not every piece has its own article. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL, most of the claims the article makes are un-comfirmed and mostly just speculation. Until more is known about 2009 in Music this article is redundent. Buc (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced speculation is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and every item in this article cites a source. Whether those sources are reliable or not is another question which should be discussed on the article's talk page, but at least some of the cited sources include Billboard magazine and Forbes. Even if "most of the claims" are just speculation from unreliable sources, there are clearly claims about 2009 releases that can be made from reliable sources. 2009 is less than 6 months away, and artists and producers are now making plans for what they will release in 2009. They are certainly not making plans for what they will release in 2050. Even without consulting this article, I was able to find several verifiable facts from reliable sources about upcoming 2009 album releases: No Doubt (MTV.com), Outkast (MTV.com), Built to Spill (Billboard.com), Lynyrd Skynyrd (Billboard.com), Freebass (Billboard), Dead by Sunrise (RollingStone.com), Amy Winehouse (RollingStone.com), The Shins (RollingStone.com), Franz Ferdinand (RollingStone.com), and Weezer (RollingStone.com). DHowell (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followup - I've added these to the article. I also tried to move the article to 2009 in music but that name is protected. To the closing admin: If you close this as keep, please unprotect the proper article name and move this article to that name. Thank you. DHowell (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in music, where an article which cited far fewer sources than this one was kept, and also a little over 5 months before the beginning of that year. DHowell (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though not precisely the same, I'm tempted to throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at you. It's not about that article, it's about this article. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'm tempted to throw WP:BASH right back at you. Did you even read the essay you linked to? "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.' " I believe I made a valid comparison between two, not just similar articles, but two articles which were about exactly the same topic relative to the time they were nominated for deletion. Instead of throwing around links to essays which I've already read, why don't you try telling me why you think the arguments made in 2007 to keep the 2008 article don't apply in 2008 to the 2009 article? I'll tell you why the arguments to delete, the same "crystal ball" arguments being made in this AfD, don't apply: in 2007 they were about an article which was full of unsourced information, all of which was entirely removed before the end of the AfD. This article, on the other hand, cites a source for every single item, as did the "2008 in music" article by the time its AfD was closed as keep. DHowell (talk) 20:54, 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 Nomination withdrawn although please do the necessary updates before it gets flagged again--JForget 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Cooking?[edit]

What Is Cooking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can confirm that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and support withdraw per reliable source that filming took place. These foreign films' backgrounds are tough to produce, eh? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on a sec! According to this interview (dated May 21, 2008): "Then we have a tentatively titled comedy film called What's Cooking Stella? That's again a Deepa Mehta film, which is co-directed by her brother Dilip Mehta and shot in Delhi. The film has just finished and it's in the post production stage right now." PC78 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination - excellent detective work! Many thanks for saving that, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:25, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk.bizarre[edit]

Talk.bizarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I also nominate the redirect Newsfroup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I decline to speedy this, since the article has sufficient content that one might consider the newsgroup in question to be notable. However, the newsgroup may remain non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete By WP:WEB standards, this is no more notable than your average web-based forum that has by and large replaced USENET. Google hits are nearly all for sites that archive USENET postings, just as some sites mirror Wikipedia. Google Groups is merely Google's own newsfeed. The hits in Google News' archive are either false positives, or cites as background for a wider article. Such a mention is not considered valid as a show of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without proper sources this entire article is original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:WEB in every area. Undeath (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:54, 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 --JForget 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a confusing one. It started life as Wrexham & Shropshire Route. It was put for deletion. The consensus was for merge with Wrexham & Shropshire. Well Gwen Gale felt as though there wasn't enough content to merge with the main article, so she deleted it. Well just before the first AfD started, Mpvide65 created a template (Template:Wrexham & Shropshire Route) that contained the information that was in the route article. On July 4th, that template was nominated for deletion. Mpvide65 then immediately moved the template to Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram). So now we're basically back where we started. I ran into this because I was about to delete the template per a template for deletion. This Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram) article actually has less content than the original deleted article had. It's still essentially just a template with a very small lead paragraph. I don't personally have an opinion here. I'm just presenting this because this needs to be resolved one way or another. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:07, 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 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bôtchô[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found another source. I'm feeling notability isn't much of an issue if we could find two sources on it, which are quite independent of each other. My initial concern was if such a cream was fictitious, but at least that has been taken care of. So, may be we should keep the article. —KetanPanchaltaLK 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep But I'd like to see more sources added, and not just because I'm a fan of Sir Mixalot. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely it's a notable product in the Ivory Coast. Two English-language sources for an Ivory Coast product equal many English-language sources of an American product. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Initially, I'd just brought the sources to notice, but didn't think of them from Brewcrewer's perspective. That's a very relevant point. Actually, there are a few more sources, but not in the English language, so didn't bring them here. One should also note that I'd searched on Google, and this cosmetic product could have different spellings, which would bring in more results. —KetanPanchaltaLK 09:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, it seems that if that is all we can find, that's ok, but a translation may be required eventually. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:56, 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. —Sean Whitton / 14:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't (Remyx LP)[edit]

Ain't (Remyx LP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This topic has been re-created after an uncontested {{prod}}. No claim of notability in the article, nor are there any references--not to mention the secondary, substantial references required to demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 04:37, 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 --JForget 01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Fork Fire[edit]

South Fork Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article failes to state any sources, not notable since it wasn't a major fire. Bidgee (talk) 04:11, 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 (non-admin closure), the article has obviously now been expanded beyond a dicdef. Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overspending[edit]

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

Little more than a dictionary definition, and I can't see how it would be expanded into an actual encyclopedia article. Already has wiktionary:overspending entry. ZimZalaBim talk 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No hope of expansion beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may well be the case that 'overspending' could have an encyclopedia article written about it, but this text is not the article that deserves to exist with that name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator is apparently unable to see the potential for expansion. He cannot then have either read the article, which contains substantial sources on the topic, nor searched for sources, which are abundant. For example, on Google Scholar alone, there are thousands of sources such as Patterns of Overspending in US Households. The reference to WP:DICDEF is inappropriate since the article does not focus upon the word - its etymology, pronunciation, etc - but upon the topic. It might be a case of Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent. but I fancy that the appearance of this nomination is related to another AFD which we are contesting and so this is a case of WP:STALK/WP:POINT. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I don't doubt that 'overspending' is worth an article, but the present article consists of three sentences. It would be better to have a redirect than what we have now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see our editing policy which explains the method of a Wiki - that we should nuture such seedling stubs rather than stamping upon them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 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.

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

The result was speedy keep - we've been through this too many times, and last one was far too recent. See my comments on the last AfD. Al Tally talk 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a completely non-notable website. It fails WP:N (more specifically WP:WEB) and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Alexfusco5 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't POV then why does it state only positive things about ED, and makes no mention of criticism and it doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Alexfusco5 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what criticism from reliable sources are we to include? Protonk (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- lacks notable source coverage. I mean I see some news coverage, but it needs far much more notable references than it has, at least ten times the current number of refs. William Ortiz (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would mean, just to be clear, that the article would need 200 sources. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, and I was this close to responding with something about how it would need OVER 9000 sources!!!! but on the off chance you were serious, I held back.  ;) Protonk (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the website has a traffic rank of 2,459, that doesn't make it notable. Alexfusco5 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, just because a large number of Wikipedians dislike a site, that doesn't make it non-notable. Not directed at anyone in particular, but among those claiming non-notability as a basis for deletion, it's going to be quite difficult to sort out those who actually believe this from those who simply wanted something a bit less obvious than "delete because I hate it." It's worth pointing out that it's only been two months since the last AfD, which was indeed quite an expansive discussion including a large number of people -- what has changed since then? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a notable website. It has a tendency to go against wikipedia's grain despite using the same software, but that is not a reason for us to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep For the lulz and for the mudkipz. Also for Longcat, who is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Haven't we gone through this already? There are a few issues with the prose, but sources such as this have me convinced that the site meets WP:WEB. Also, the involvement with Jason Fortuny is a notable part of the site's history, as is the involvement with Anonymous and Project Chanology. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part, though at the same time a little surprised that this showed up for AfD again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been through this before. How does this fail WP:N? At all? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, ED was covered again by Dibbel at a talk for GLS 2008. Talk discusses and reprises elements of the wired article, but is distinct enough to be a source. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Given how much drama there was in the last AfD, we should get a break from this. The nomination behaves as if nothing had been said before. If the article isn't NPOV, fix it, don't delete it! As to notability, it's obvious that the site isn't completely non-notable. This is a silly nomination for a silly reason. Stop it, now, please. --Abd (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Do we really, really need to start all this drama yet another time???? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong or Speedy Keep. Aside from meeting the usual criteria for keep, this article is a tribute to Wikipedia and our ability to "be the better man". If anyone tries to argue we censor topics we dislike, let them come to this article and see that Wikipedia CAN work. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep No need to rehash this again. Notability has been established per the last AfD. Plvekamp (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Keep. For goodness sake! Seriously are we actually re-hashing the same old bull again?? This does not fail any of the criterion for deletion or notability, why oh why are we doing this again? I think someone has a bad case of "I don't like it". ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also gais check out mai usarbokz! :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One, the article doesn't seem to have a POV to me, and two, one look at the page makes it obvious to me that it meets WP:N. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not totally keen on the site myself, given that I've a page there and I'd not lose sleep if the entire site disappeared up its own .. well, y'know - but for the meantime the fact is that it easily meets WP:N. It's been cited in enough sources already (SFGate being one that immediately comes to mind). But yeah, keep :/ - Alison ❤ 06:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - How many MOAR citations does an article need to establish notability? Further more, any claims of an article not being notable without actual evidence supporting the accusation is always suspicious. A bad case of "I don't like it" perhaps? Rilak (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We already went over this on the DRV and the second AFD, and a pair of new sources have appeared since then --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis nomination is a complete waste of time and is the sort of thing which gets wikipedia a bad name for naval gazing and, well, over dramatising things. It's obviously not going to get deleted. Someone please close this. Nick mallory (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per previous AfD discussion. As noted, the article is sufficiently sourced already and we shouldn't demand anything more than we demand from other articles. Can we please lay the thing to rest? Or at least come up with some new policies on how to deal with, er, articles that prove excessively dramatic in Wikipedia deletion debates? Or at least make a policy that specifically says "only one speedy-closed borderline-vexatious {GNAA/Brian Peppers/Daniel Brandt/Encyclopedia Dramatica} {AFD/DRV} nomination per editor"? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of this post, there are eighteen independent sources - more than enough - to establish notability for the website. As for NPOV issues, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. --wL<speak·check> 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough. If you don't like the look of it sort it out. There are lots of badly-written articles on notable topics. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple sources show notability, and if npov is a problem, tag it and explain your reasons for it--Kip Kip 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above, notable subject. Jезка (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep I'm pretty sure there have been more than 3 nominations. JuJube (talk) 11:09, 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 A7 by Jauerback, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe hollywood[edit]

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

Disputed Prod. Teenage reality TV "star" and internet celebrity. No WP:RS coverage cited or found to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solo-67[edit]

Solo-67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author requests more time to improve the article, so I have (generously) declined to speedily delete it. However, the subject of the article appears to be non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I doubt that it would do much good. I can't see that this band passes WP:MUSIC. No listing on allmusic. Getaway Records does not appear to be a notable independent label. Google hits are mostly myspace, YouTube, and music-based social networking sites like last.fm, so coverage is lacking. DarkAudit (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 anyway. There's no evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC, and even if given a change to expand, the band still wouldn't meet WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:31, 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 'Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional[edit]

Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no notability asserted; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Is this the highest level of professional basketball in Mexico? If so, then it's a definite keep. DarkAudit (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the highest professional league in the country, it is definitely notable. Change from weak keep to definite keep. DarkAudit (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep translated, it is the National Professional Basketball League, probably the highest professional league. "Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional (LNBP) is the top professional basketball league in Mexico" is definitely an assertion of notability. Suggest nom re-visit this. Improvement is needed, not deletion. TravellingCari 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dennis Rodman did play in the league, which is a decent claim to fame. I'll look for refs on the other players. Zagalejo^^^ 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Is the top basketball league in Mexico, also the league's top clubs played the first FIBA Americas League, the tournament was broadcasted by FOX Sports, and the final stage was played in northwestern Mexico. JC 22:46, 18 July 2008 (PST)
  • Keep. Professional sports league. Obviously should be kept. Should never have been nominated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, very notable obviously. --ChaChaFut (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slam dunk keep I'm not sure the basis for the nomination by Mr. E. Sanchez (one might say it's a "Mister E"), since the "LNBP" does assert notability as the senior pro basketball league in Mexico. If nominator thinks that's not notable enough, he is mistaken. That notwithstanding, Sanchez is right that it could use some more sourcing besides just the league website; the info from FoxSports can be added as a start. Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - obvious keep as a top-level professional league. matt91486 (talk) 22:05, 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 No consensus — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usage.english[edit]

Alt.usage.english (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable newsgroup. No reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If one uses WP:WEB as the standard, this article does not pass. USENET groups are not much more than the predecessors of the web-based forums of today, and by and large those sites don't pass WP:WEB. The mass of Google hits are nearly all from archive sites that mirror USENET groups, or individual posts from the subject group. Neither are considered reliable sources. Google Groups is just Google's own USENET newsfeed. DarkAudit (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. No third-party coverage by reliable sources mentioned in the article and very little to be found elsewhere. GoogleNews gives a grand total of 10 hits[22], that all appear to be passing mentions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak Delete for the moment, per Dhartung's comment below. In fact, the GoogleBooks results are not that bad, 43 hits[23]. However, it is true that they all seem to be passing mentions. Still, one should probably dig a little deeper here, as this subject might in fact be notable. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. I would have expected it to be demonstrably notable, but apparently not. Only trivial mentions in Google Books. On the other hand, the redlinked sci.lang just might be able to pass muster based on more plentiful and substantial sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Those examples are citing the group's FAQ as background for another article, not features on the newsgroup itself. DarkAudit (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:WEB. Another little-known newsgroup with few to no links outside of message archives. -Dempkovitch (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a widely used site at the time -- its rrather hard to find formal sources for alt groups. They got very little mainstream attention while they existed. DGG (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB Article mentions how the newsgroup is filled with off-topic garbage. Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:WEB --T-rex 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While most newsgroups are not notable, this one is an exception. It's widely cited in academic literature"alt.usage.english" and referenced in books"alt.usage.english" and news articles[24]. Pburka (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pburka. While there are tens of thousands of newsgroups, particularly in the "alt" category, this one is more like an experts' mailing list. Recommend the article be fleshed out with a few examples of its use in academia and the news. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pburka. I can't get the links to work, but when I copied and pasted the one to Google Scholar, I think it shows that the newsgroup itself and the associated archives (such as Bob Cunningham's sound files) are notable. I agree with Squidfryerchef that the article needs some citations showing that. As a frequent participant in a.u.e. and a contributor to the article (full disclosure), I can't agree that it's like an experts' mailing list, though. And I certainly can't agree with DGG's use of the past tense. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Sources are light, but per others above, they exist. Meeting WP:N with them looks hard (not mainly about the topic). That said, I think we should do better with old usenet groups here. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pburka. (Full disclosure: I contributed much to the article and, formerly, participated in a.u.e.)—msh210℠ 17:03, 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 — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs[edit]

Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable newsgroup. Fork of a newsgroup that's red linked, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Using WP:WEB in the absence of any established standard for USENET groups by themselves, this article does not pass. There may be thousands of Google hits, but those are almost exclusively sites that archive USENET groups, and thus are simply mirrors of the group. Google Groups is nothing more than Google's own USENET feed. This is really no different than the web-based forums that have since come into being. Only in very exceptional cases do those web forums pass WP:WEB. This is not an exceptional case. DarkAudit (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Coverage of this newsgroup in reliable sources apparently exists, but is hidden. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs shows two articles that mention the newsgroup, but one link is broken and the other is behind a paywall. Nonetheless, both articles exist. --Eastmain (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply These are textbook examples of mention "in passing" as part of a wider article. such a mention is specifically mentioned as not passing WP:WEB. DarkAudit (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:WEB Artene50 (talk) 22:02, 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 no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Tienan[edit]

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

Generally non-notable. Tagged as such since November 2007. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability guidelines for musicians. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uncle Monk per Eastmain's sources. The sources are good enough for Uncle Monk to pass WP:MUSIC, but she doesn't seem to pass it on her own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references about the band. --Eastmain (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge to Uncle Monk references recently added only mention her name, she is not the subject of the articles as WP:MUSIC requires. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uncle Monk. While Eastmain's refernces do mention her, she is not the subject of the references- the band is, and she is only mentioned as part of the band. Reyk YO! 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Uncle Monk, all the references are about the band, not Claudia Tienan, there is simply nothing there to support a biographical article. --Stormie (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Uncle Monk. As noted above, all sources are about the band, not about this performer individually. WP:MUSIC is very clear on this issue:"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Nsk92 (talk) 01:55, 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 keep under criterion #1: no editor, including the nominator, recommends deletion of the articles. Mergers are a separate process. (Secondarily, the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sutherland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Added Note: A regular search of any of these turns up very little besides episode guides and ITV (the network the show is on). -- Dodgechris (talk | contribs) 11:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of characters I'm nominating:

  • Kirk Sutherland -- 1 hit on Google, Nearly 8 years on show, high notability asserted, stub class information.
  • Molly Compton -- 0 hits on Google, 3 years on show, high notability asserted, deletion has been considered, currently in storyline.
  • Ryan Connor -- nearly 2 years on show, stub class, small notability asserted, appears on a more recurring basis.
  • Julie Carp -- less than 1 year on show, no notability asserted, appears on a recurring basis.
  • Pam Hobsworth -- Only just joined, small notability asserted, currently appearing.
  • Kelly Crabtree -- 2 hits on Google, 4 years on show, small notability asserted, occasionally appears.
  • Vernon Tomlin -- 2 hits on Google, notability asserted, reguarly appears, leaving show soon.
  • Chesney Battersby-Brown -- 1 hit on Google, 5 years on show, not currently in storyline.
  • Dev Alahan -- 1 hit on Google, long time on show, only ever had 1 real storyline, currently appaers.
  • Carla Connor -- 3 hits on Google, over 1 year on show, needs cititions for verification, small notability, has had numerous storylines.
  • Becky Granger -- 2 hits on Google, 2 years on show, notability asserted, background character in a current storyline.
  • Tina McIntyre -- 3 hits on Google, less than year on show, high notability asserted.
  • Harry Mason -- 2 hits on Google, less than year on show, average notability asserted, leving show soon.
  • Dan Mason -- 2 hits on Google, less than year on show, average notability asserted, leaving show soon.

What of Kelly Crabtree, Vernon Tomlin, Chesney Battersby-Brown, Dev Alahan, Carla Connor, Becky Granger, Tina McIntyre, Harry Mason and Dan Mason? -- Dodgechris (talk)

I have had no choice but to renominate Carla Connor - she has previously been nominated in 2007, but the article was kept -- Dodgechris (talk)

I am still concerned about Kirk and Molly having their own page -- Dodgechris (talk)

  • Comment - could you choose which articles you're nominating, and finalise your list? You've been nominating, un-nominating and re-nominating different articles for the past five hours, making it very hard to actually put forth an opinion. Frickative 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Frickative 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all in the appropriate places, assuming none of them is actually a major character. If it is being asserted that some of them are, then this afd must be split and relisted. DGG (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What shall i do with the rest of the characters on the deletion list? -- Dodgechris (talk)

Keep as a trainwreck. It's quite clear that the nominator hasn't quite decided what should happen to each individual article. Those that stand on its own should not be nominated. Those that should be merged to a list of characters can be dealt with outside of AFD. And if there are any left at the end of the activity, then they can be nominated for AFD then. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Since merging is not deleting, the nominator is effectively not asking for deletion. There are separate tags and procedures for merges. I'm on lunch break and don't have time to fully unwind the nominations, or I would close it myself. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 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. Shereth 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32 East Third Street[edit]

32 East Third Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this even notable? It's a residence. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No, it's not notable. Even if the event was notable, a variant of the one-event rule should apply. Good grief. We are not going to have entries for every address where a major crime was committed. RayAYang (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several crimes took place there, not just one. And there is a book by a notable publisher which serves as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The address is not notable in and of itself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So, every address mentioned in a book deserves it's own article? Every location, where a notable criminal planned crimes, deserves it's own page? Please. Radioinfoguy (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RS coverage beyond the book is thin. Yes, two bodies were temporarily buried there, but other sources note that in passing. Third Street had several Winter Hill Gang-related homes on it. 32 Third had a relatively minor role. The killings at 799 get the bulk of the attention. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Stephen Flemmi article. Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 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 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartographic aggression[edit]

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

Rarely used neologism. Article only exists to push an agenda. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the current state of the article is terrible and a lot of it seems to be a coatrack article for the author(s) opinions about various international disputes. But there does seem to be a degree of usage of this term in reliable geographical sources, so I suspect there is the potential for a viable article on this topic if it was sourced and written properly. I don't see much of a problem with deleting the current version, but the topic may well be worthy of inclusion.~ mazca t | c 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; A NY Times letter to the editor by a professor of political geography at the University of South Florida[25], an article in the Guardian [26], and a book published by the Oxford University Press [27] all use this term. Even if the article as is fails WP:NPOV, it's a notable event, with several undeniable examples and several examples that are notably controversial, and the name used for it seems well enough established.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found five mentions in the mainstream British press, the earliest 1998. All of them were in the context of India and the earliest explicitly attributes the origin of the phrase to India; however sometimes it's India accused of perpetrating it, sometimes they are claiming to be the victim of it. Needs good sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep [Google book search] indicates that it is used among political scientists, if not cartographers, and it's not a neologism (unless "it's new to you"). This seems to be the accepted term for the act of including disputed territory as one's own property on a map. Nominator is right, however, that this has some POV problems that need to be fixed. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 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 Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Curran (actor)[edit]

Kevin Curran (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a 4-5 year old who played a baby/toddler in the BBC soap EastEnders. Seeing as baby actors are essentially living props, and would have gone without an actual line I would suggest they are non-notable. Certainly they would not appear to fufil the criteria set out by WP:Entertainer. For the same reason, I am also nominating:

HornetMike (talk) 20:09, 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 Looks like the snow's come early this year. Added a "citations needed" template. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary[edit]

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

irrelevant/self-publicity Lucas Ayala (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. On a daily basis, we see delete votes here at AfD on the grounds that the entries listed actually belong in Urban Dictionary instead of Wikipedia. If that's not a solid proof of notability, I don't know what is. The article may need cleanup, but not deletion. The nom's account was created earlier today, so I guess he/she didn't know that this is just one of those rare articles whose notability goes without saying. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a top ranked web site. Numerous articles written about it in the mainstream press, e.g. this article from AP. I'm expecting WP:SNOW. Pburka (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I usually suspect something pointy when the first edit a user makes is an AfD nomination (OK, it was his second. His first was creating the AfD on his userpage). There's ample reliable sources (want more? here.). And this is not self publicity as it was created back in June 2003 by an editor with no links to the website. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB, pick your poison. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, clearly notable subject that has been covered in multiple sources. I worry that this is a bad-faith nom, due to the nonspecific nomination statement and lack of other edits by nominator. ~ mazca t | c 22:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, but... It would be a good idea to add some of those plenty of or multiple scurces that refer to the subject. One of the measures of notability is coverage by independent sources. The way the article reads now (one independent footnote, and tone of article), I can see where the nominator would conclude that this was unsourced, "self-publicity". Mandsford (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not a "bad-faith" person, excuse me if i made a mistake --Lucas Ayala (talk) 00:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_19&oldid=1081074081"