Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Upstairs[edit]

Non-notable homemade compilation albums made by three non notable so called DJ's. None of the DJ's have any Google hits except Wikipedia. Supersnazz (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources provided, none could be found, and none are likely to be found. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: So let's review. These "compilation albums" consist of three guys in mom's basement ripping tracks from various albums and burning MP3s to disk. Hm. I did that in Christmas present packages, but failed to imagine how RGT Xmas 2007 could be articleworthy. No assertion of notability here. RGTraynor 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL / WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to copyright violation. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal camah[edit]

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Unsourced, written like a fan site. Tan | 39 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks suspiciously like a copyvio. Just haven't found from where yet. No sources. doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. Not notable for college basketball players. DarkAudit (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like someone copied a scouting report, but I can't prove that at this time. Even if it's not a copyvio, this guy never played in the NBA or any notable foreign league, and I don't think he'd be able to get in solely on his college career. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, looks like most of it came from here: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unencyclopedic. No source. Non-notable guy. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged for copyvio speedy. DarkAudit (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio (CSD G12). WjBscribe 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manorlane[edit]

Article is WP:SPAM, as it is commercial in nature - contravenes WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, wikipedia is not a directory for conducting business. I found this page due to edits to biogas (diff) User A1 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - A bot found that this page is actually a copyright violation. See User_Talk:Ecr33. User A1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. The page is all taken from the different sections of http://www.manorlane.co.uk/ DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio has been answered on discusion page, but this only supports the argument for deletion as spam. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsigned statement claiming that it's not a copyright violation is not sufficient. It is still a copyvio. DarkAudit (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems[edit]

A seduction company. Article written by a group of sock puppets with probable COI. Is it notable? See also Nick Savoy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems is extremely notable. They have the instructor who won Keys to the VIP, they have Savoy, who was a consultant to the Vh-1 show, who wrote Magic Bullets, who wrote the Routines Manual, they are one of the largest companies in the industry, and a big media presence. I have no affiliation with the company and can prove it on request, just email me.Camera123456 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last is empty talk - how can I e-mail you? You have not set up an e-mail address. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, feel free to email me at [email protected]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 19:12, March 31, 2008

Comment. Stop wasting our time - I tried that e-mail address address and got: "Sorry your message to <redacted> cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta309.mail.mud.yahoo.com". (Just in case that was a genuine mistake - you can e-mail me via the link on my user page.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Odd. My email works - yahoo must have had a hiccough. Try it again? I will try to find your email to email you now as well.Camera123456 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't have to "find my e-mail" - follow this link. Re your comment below, I would agree: getting involved with Wikipedia definitely has aspects of a Kafka novel. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I emailed you. Let me know if you didn't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems, while in my opinion the absolute worst name in the history of seduction companies, is notable simply for being the largest company in the seduction community. Furthermore, as I wrote in why Savoy should be included in a list of notable instructors, Pre The Game I was a natural, I wanted to learn how to work group sets and get threesomes. Strengthening the transition phase so that you could use it to open after a functional or situational opener, or just dive into conversations, is exactly what I was doing before the VAH. There's also a lot of great stuff Savoy added in reworking qualification, which is also what I was doing before the VAH. What they've done is make it a topic of conversation rather than BHRR, and made it come in waves rather than just one phase by itself. In short he's made the game a lot more seamless with natural game, which for me is the goal, just take what we do naturally and refine it. The 6 types of relationships and learning how to frame those different relationship expectations before sleeping with your girl is also something I haven't heard anyone talk of before Savoy. He's definitely added things to the community. I'd say that Sinn, Captain Jack, and El Topo, who just departed, are at the forefront in Seduction Community Technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthToPower69 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love Systems is notable including:

Media presence (articles listed in the article, more at www.lovesystems.com/media and www.lovesystems.com/publications
Keys to the VIP (Love Systems mentioned in the Wikipedia Keys to the VIP article, go to youtube and look up Love Systems, it was a (self-identified) Love Systems instructor who won the show
It's (the bigger) half of the old Mystery Method. On the Wikipedia Mystery Method page Love Systems is mentioned
They published two of the more influential books in the seduction community - Magic Bullets and the Routines Manual - both are highly googleable
They just held the largest Conference in the seduction industry, including as guests Pickup 101, Carlos Xuma, and other guys listed on the "notable members of the seduction community"
The notable members of the seduction community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community) has since two years ago been talking about the need for a Savoy page and Love Systems is the company he is primarily involved with
Or go to the big seduction forums like www.theattractionforums.com or www.pick-up-artist-forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 19:12, March 31, 2008

Comment: The only votes so far came from two single-purpose accounts. —BradV 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a single-purpose account? I don't know who Truth is and I essentially rewrote his page but I have posted and edited a lot of stuff in the seduction community on wiki (and on other subjects too). I used to just use my IP address - you see a bunch of edits on the Mystery Method page with that. It's the one that starts 72. Camera123456 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems not notable? That's kind of funny. Are you guys aware that Love Systems IS the same people as Mystery Method? WikiPUA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.96.34.27 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Walled garden, no reliable third-party sources provided. No convincing claim of third-party notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user who wrote, "Keep!!!" Savoy is an anchor member of the seduction community. He was mentioned in the Game, consulted on the most popular television show about seduction, and has appeared in the press. Also, he runs one of the largest seduction companies in the world. Deleting him would be bowing to his competitors who are recommending deletion strictly for their own personal financial gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet silver (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does everyone who wants it deleted make claims and then not back them up? It's not a walled garden - there are important links to and from other seduction community pages like The Mystery Method, Keys to the VIP, Notable Members of the Seduction Community, the Pickup Artist TV show, etc. I would turn this around and ask what relevant pages you'd expect to see Love Systems on and don't? I had the idea of making the page (someone else got there first) when I kept seeing Love Systems referenced but they didn't have a page (and guys like Piclkup101 did). Camera123456 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you plan on voting? —BradV 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Some of us like to contribute here and there on Wikipedia, we don't spend all day obsessing over it. I thought you were supposed to state your opinion before each comment so people could identify your position. So I was wrong. The reason some people get frustrated here is that they feel they've entered a Kafka novel. Why can't people just be friendly and respectful and not sarcastic? I don't get paid for this; I just put a couple hours in one day to correct a major omission (tiny guys in the seduction community have big pages and LS had none even though it's mentionned on all of these other pages). No one ever responds to my substantive points, all people do is make snarky comments about my formatting. Seriously...is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be? For example, I see comments that it is a walled garden or that my account is "single purpose". I have responded to both. (for reference with the latter, go to the mystery method page, before I created an account I was the 72.whatever IP address. Camera123456 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. I'd be willing to reconsider if third-party reliable sources show up. —BradV 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I can't for the life of me figure out why these sources don't qualify as notable, especially in comparison to other seduction leaders who are far less well-known and whose pages are on here. Even according to the wikipedia guidelines these are notable. But if it helps, Savoy (the President of Love Systems)'s previously taped episode on the Dr Phil show is airing on Friday, April 11. But I suppose that "doesn't count" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Philippe 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy, Nick[edit]

Dating coach and pickup artist. Looks very much like self-promotion. Is he notable? See also Love Systems. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he notable? R u kidding me? He is Savoy. He owns the biggest Pick up company in the world. People from all over the world come to attend his seminars. How do you suggest deletion when you don't even know who Savoy is? I reccomend do some research and homework on your own before you jump to delete other people's pages.Truthfullmee (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Truthfullmee[reply]
- On Wikipedia, notability is demonstrated by reference to intellectually independent, reliable sources --- typically newspapers, magazines, or books which are not written by the subject of the article or his associates. It is the responsibility of article creators to provide such sources. cab (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not testify to the existence of any good sources, just blogs and forum posts --- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of external sources about Savoy that are listed on the page itself. The Globe and Mail is Canada's national newspaper. He's on Fox News. Interviewed by national CBS radio. He was a consultant to the Pickup Artist show (check IMDB). They are also on www.lovesystems.com/media.Camera123456 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Savoy has a lot of enemies in the "pickup community", maybe some of them are involved in trying to get him off of wikipedia?Camera123456 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A brief quote in a newspaper or working for a television show is not a sign of notability. The longest source, the Brink Magazine interview, is in a barely-known expat rag which reaches a readership of maybe a few thousand even being given away for free; the Hong Kong Audit Bureau of Circulations doesn't even bother with them. Accusing regular editors of being involved in a conspiracy theory is a laughable sign of desperation. cab (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what will you call to the circulation Fox News and CBS Radio? Further notability does not come only from media publishing a page on something. You have to take into account his position in the pick up community. Go and read what independent sites like Fast Seductiontalk about him. Now you can laugh as much as you want but on your self.Truthfullmee (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Truthfullmee[reply]

Comment. If kept, the article needs to be retitled in order to be consistent with Wiki naming conventions. 23skidoo (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear are you objecting to plain use of Savoy, Nick. I guess I do see your point there. So it can be: Savoy, (pick up artist)?Truthfullmee (talk)
  - If kept the name would be "Nick Savoy", not "Savoy, Nick" per naming conventions. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accusations? What? That seems an overreaction to what I said. Let's keep the temperature down here. If the page needs to be renamed, it needs to be renamed. It's not a big deal. But when you compare Savoy to the other notable members of the seduction community, guys like Carlos Xuma, and argue that Savoy shouldn't be there, that's just kind of silly. And he is talked about on other Wiki pages like Mystery Method.

I also noticed that two years ago in the "prominent members of the seduction community page" it seemed to be agreed by people who were talking about it then that Savoy should be added - check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the page should be kept, but I agree that the name should be changed. I think he tends to go by the name "Savoy" anyway, not Nick Savoy. Camera123456 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note the contribution history of those voting to keep! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if you evaluate your comments before posting? What has our contribution history to do with what is right and what should be done? If I remember correctly Wikipidea has content for everyone to read whether they post or not. And so when a reader has an opinion on something that matters to them you have to take it into consideration and not blow it off because they don't make living of Wikipedia like you do. Forgive me for I am not interested to post on Barbie dolls and Hitler's moustache but I do want to see a page for Savoy for he helped me with dating issues and he deserves a page here. And so I post. However I do agree that the page should be renamed.Truthfullmee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will ask again, since I just keep getting sarcastic comments when I ask you publicly. What, precisely, is wrong with my contribution history? I've posted on a variety of topics in the seduction community and outside. I made extensive additions and improvements to the Mystery Method page (as 72.whatever). Most of the time I just read. I don't add stuff gratuitously. I don't go onto every page changing a comma so I can feel important. I make additions when I have something meaningful to ad. So I will ask again, politely: what is wrong with my contributioon history?Camera123456 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the contribution history is relevant as an indication that users may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Further evidence of same is lack of knowledge of naming conventions, and repeated failure to sign postings here. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Walled garden, all supposed references actually go to the love systems web site. No convincing claim of third-party notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That's because that's there they are collected in one place. Do you think they're fake? That seems a bit extreme but I never thought of that. I'm the one who put them there; what would you suggest I do instead? I went to the Globe and Mail site (for example) and they don't have a searchable linkable archive of articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I love how you guys jump to conclusions. Glad you'r not real life investigators! Now agreed the media is sitting at Love Systems website but they are articles from Fox and CBS. So it does not matter where they sit what matters is that they are from reputed news agencies which are not owned by Savoy or Love Systems hence from a third party. I do not have time to go to their site or call them and get written testimonies from them to pacify you but you are welcome to do so. But PLEASE YOU GUYS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EVALUATE YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING! See if it makes any sense. Truthfullmee (talk)

Keep I'm a member of the seduction community and felt like I should log in here and say something. Within our community (which is sizable - just look at The Game on the bestseller list, the various international television shows devoted to the subject, etc.) Savoy is a major figure, having been involved in two of the biggest seduction companies. Not only that, but he literally wrote the book on seduction, Magic Bullets. Whether you're a fan or not, you can't argue against his notability within his field. And his interviews in major magazines and media companies? Come on, how can you deny those? And yeah, of course they're also posted on his site; that's how self-promotion works. Bixolon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The decision to keep or delete is based on policies, not on how many people like or don't like an article. Those who want to keep this article should read WP:Notability (people), then go provide references to reliable sources. No amount of passion on this page will affect the outcome. The only way to keep this article is to provide good references. So apply your passion for this subject to reading our policies, then finding the references. If you provide good references, then most likely all the Delete votes will change to Keep because our decisions are based on policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow. I feel like I'm trying to join an elitist clique. Anyway, your website, your rules I guess. Can someone tell me SPECIFICALLY 1) what is wrong with the current notability references, 2) what is wrong when you type "Savoy PUA" in google, and 3) how and why are people like Carlos Xuma more "notable" than the PRESIDENT OF MYSTERY METHOD?Camera123456 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'll note how people who know very little about a TV series, book series, or local government tend to, out of courtesy, keep right out of arguments about which parts are important. I wrote large chunks or the original Seduction Community article, and spent a lot of time both trying to keep spammers from adding pointless pages to the pages around it. Nick Savoy runs by far the largest and most media-heavy company in the industry - have you tried Googling for "Mystery Method" recently? As a result, a page about him helps give the fuller picture about what the industry is about. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe the content needs to be changed, but constructive dialog about that is the way forward, rather than howling from the peanut gallery. RHaworth - why don't you get us started in this constructive dialog? WoodenBuddha (talk)

I believe that you are probably not one of the endless sockpuppets of Camera123456. What does "howling from the peanut gallery" mean? Ain't I started the dialogue by created this AfD? What else did you have in mind? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no non-trivial third-part sources which establish notability have been demonstrated, either on the article on in this discussion. --Haemo (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't for the life of me figure out why these sources don't qualify as notable, especially in comparison to other seduction leaders who are far less well-known and whose pages are on here. Even according to the wikipedia guidelines these are notable. But if it helps, Savoy's previously taped episode on the Dr Phil show is airing on Friday, April 11. But I suppose that "doesn't count" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossian productions[edit]

Delete. Lack of independent references establishing notability, bordering on spam. Does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY. WWGB (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, also doesn't meet with WP:COMPANY.--RyRy5 talk 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability, lacks sourcing, reads like an advert, the only Google News hit is a company report from Experian. This suggests existence but not notability. - Dravecky (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual growth[edit]

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.
(A PROD in August 2006 was contested, hence this AFD rather than a PROD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very low quality stub with little potentialDGG (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe this could be transwikied to Wiktionary if they want it. —BradV 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What did Wiktionary do to you that you'd want to inflict this on them? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notablity and references made (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intertestamental period[edit]

This badly-written article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Previous AFD for this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Historical Bridge Spanning the Interval of the Old Testament and the New Testament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of documentation out there. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/inter.htm provides a ton. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as obviously notable. "may be deleted' means may be deleted if other people are convinced that no sources can be found, not, must be deleted if it is presently unsourced. The article could probably have been sourced just as easily as taken here. Deletion is the last resort, and Afd should not be used to improve articles. Sourcing should be used to improve articles. Obviously its the primary obligation of the person writing the article, but then of everyone who can help. DGG (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could not have put it better myself. 100% agree. Halfmast (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha, me and DGG are teh stalkers! Heh. Neal (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep (and exclamations of astonishment). What on earth is this doing on Afd? Even if sub has not heard of this well-known and important historical period, simply running the title through Google Scholar throws up hundreds of good third-party academic references. Halfmast (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Christians use this term to refer to the period before Christ during which no books of the Bible were written (approximately 400 years). The article is badly in need of improvement, but it's not beyond hope. —BradV 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it's a POV issue. Protestants use the term since they don't consider the books written during that time part of the Bible. Catholics don't use the term. But that still doesn't mean deletion is the answer - we have many articles on terms that only one religion or partisan group uses. (e.g. purgatory, immaculate conception) —BradV 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's more than that. It's also a widely-used academic term for the historical period between the old and new testaments.Halfmast (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement, but commonly used term in Biblical scholarship. Edward321 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this article stands it is 100 percent original research. Many are familiar with the term but what authority is cited to define the term? absolutely none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources can be found for this. This may need a cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted. —BradV 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Jmlk17 ([2]). Non-admin close. —BradV 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan areas in Ireland[edit]

Unreferenced stub list, which cites no sources for the population figures, and no (most crucially) no sources for the notion of "metropolitan areas" in Ireland, which appears to be original research. If at some future date someone finds references in reliable sources which define the novel concept of "metropolitan areas in Ireland", and which cite population figures in reliable sources, then it might be worth recreating something like this article, IF notability can be established. But this stubby list is a misleading piece of original resaerch Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been brought to AFD when there is an uncontested PROD on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Since the proposed deletion was put in on March 28, and nobody removed it, I think she's right, you don't have to bring it to AfD. Even if it was contested, the big problem is defining "metropolitan area", which usually goes beyond the chief city's limits. Mandsford (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as good as similar articles for others--there just are fewer of them in Ireland. apppropriate summary list. DGG (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (or question) Re: then it might be worth recreating something like this article, IF notability can be established. Notability? Established? What's this got to do with notability or not. If the problem is original research/no reliable sources, I don't see how "notability" plays a role. Heh. Neal (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation (if sourced). - Philippe 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ivie[edit]

This article was wholly unreferenced, from June 2006 until 19 March this year, failing wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. One ref was added on 19 March, a link to the artist's own website. 21 months is quite long enough for independent references to be have been added to establish notability per WP:BIO, but they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as non-notable. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs better sourcing and some rewriting, true, but subject strongly notable per WP:MUSIC. Article needs improvement, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It has already had nearly two years for notability to be demonstrated by referencing, and in that time has been clearly tagged as needing that attention. This article doesn't demonstrate notability, but there's no barrier to a new article being created in future if someone wants to reference it to reliable sources which can establish notability. WP:V isn't some tedious novelty, it's fundamental to wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia, and this article doesn't make the grade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep subject appears to meet WP:MUSIC. If article doesn't, that a WP:SOFIXIT problem. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC) delete I agree with BHG at this point, I can't source this.Hobit (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT is a redirect to Wikipedia:Be bold, which is all about improving an article — the opening sentence says "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc." However, improvement is not the process to apply when something is rotten to the core, as the case with an article referenced only its subject's own website. The solution in that case is a complete rebuild, and what's the point in keeping the old debris in the way?
  What your FIXIT argument seems to suggest is that so long as the subject is notable enough to merit an article, than it doesn't actually matter whether it is referenced, as required by WP:V, because it's nice to have something on the subject. I don't buy this: this is not myspace or a newspaper opinion column where any old set of words will do so long as they expand the column of text down to the bottom of the page, it is is an encyclopedia whose content is based on the principles of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, because your argument seems to be that verifiability is not actually fundamental, just something which would be nice if some day someone ever feels like applying it here ... no deadline, just a vague aspiration. If that's really the case, we should stop calling WP:V a policy and downgrade it to an essay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently fails WP:MUSIC; sum total of what AllMusic has is a single song by the Dixie Cadillacs, who have no article here and don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC themselves. No evidence there of the Billboard chart hits, not enough in any event. --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how I came across this AfD. So it seems this articles was started by Argaylord, and then, his contribs Special:Contributions/Argaylord. Seems like this article is only notable per 1 person. Not very useful then.. Neal (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Maker[edit]

I believe that this software might be non-notable and inappropriate for Wikipedia Marlith (Talk) 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to show notability or even existence. Google search revealed blogs and forums referring to the software, but not much else. DarkAudit (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have heard of this or something very similar (the competitor mentioned in the article), but there is no attribution of notability to outside sources. --Dhartung | Talk 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)gyuj[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdraw. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian People's Movement[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Could not find refs or news. NN. Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a regional party active in Veneto, as Liga Veneta or Liga Veneta Repubblica. Moreover its leader is a regional deputy and would-be regional minister.The article has even a reference. It is a stub, but I can't find any reason for deleting it. --Checco (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge number of sources telling us of the party. I just put in the article the six most notable ones, mostly articles from leading Italian newspapers. --Checco (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now well-sourced from a variety of reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if the sources met WP:RSUE --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Checco. Bad quality of sources is no reason to delete an encyclopedic article. —Nightstallion 10:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Checco. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw My concerns remain unchanged, but given the consistency of the views presented in this RfA, I am prepared at this point to withdraw the nom. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Primorsky Krai[edit]

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.

I PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested, so I am bringing it to AFD, and should note that as well as being unreferenced, it has also been tagged for cleanup since October 2006. Why do we keep such poor quality material? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We keep this poor quality material so someone eventually will come along and finish the job. As a matter of fact it is one of the least populated regions in Russia, and also one of the increasingly important regions. I for one will eventually need it for the articles dealing with the Second World War part of its history which is completely lacking in the article as it is now. I am not going to argue over it since I have no spare time to "husband" the article now, but if you continue with the deletion, I will re-create it at a later stage. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I will have no objection to its recreation if the new article is referenced! (and I'm sure an article by you would be well-sourced). But while I'm sure that a good article could be written on an important region, a wholly unreferenced piece is not that article. 21 months is long enough to wait for a cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article does list a reference. What it lacks are inline citations, no surprise with an article of this vintage. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs a lot of wikifying, cleanup, in-line citations, and a general overhaul, but I think that the subject (the history of a large region) is inherently notable. BWH76 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The day when we start routinely deleting articles just because we are incapable to reference them and/or clean them up will be a sad day indeed. No matter in how horrible a condition this article is, it contains bits which will be useful to whoever comes to work on this article in the future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does look a notable subject and there is at one reference - accepted that its a mess currently, but this article is certainly fixable if worked at by someone who knows something of the subject.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only necessary to compare the first four words of the nomination with the article to see that this AfD should be dismissed out of hand. The article is referenced. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, the nominator tried to prod this article before AfDing it, and it was completely unreferenced at the time. I added the reference in response to the prod, and believe the Girl simply missed it. Just an FYI, but don't be too hard on her.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ezekhi, that's correct. At the end of a long edit summary, there was a 4-character note "+ref", and I missed that. I still wonder which parts of the article are supposed to be supported by the reference, but yes, there is now a reference. I still think, however, that without citations, the article is no more than an essay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now it is sourced. Whatever shortcomings are, they do not justify deletion.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (admin can redirect if desired) (non admin withdraw). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL Unless there's significant coverage for a particular reason, no need to have page until after release. Taroaldo (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: Officially not announced.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The game is now officially announced. Here are the press release 1 2 3 4 5 6 and counting+.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War until this firms up and gets some more content.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Redirect - no press release from the publisher confirming that the game is in production, along with magazine articles that cite a leaked and inaccurate PDF means that there's nothing reliable to base this article on. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unverifiable speculation should be deleted, not merged/redirected. --- Taroaldo (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SkyWalker - Title has been officially announced by the publisher, voiding my objection. These refs do need to go into the main article though. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I included a reference to THQ's news release [3] in the article. Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game seems to have been announced. That's not WP:CRYSTAL. It's a short article, but it's only a matter of time before content trickles in. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The source cited is a Relic fansite quoting an unnamed Belgian gaming magazine. There has been no official announcement from the developer or publisher as yet. --Gazimoff (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. The entirety of this article can be merged into the introduction of Dawn of War with the sentence "a sequel was announced in March 2008, for release in 2009", sourced to the article's only reference. There is far too little information to justify a separate article at this point. When far more substantive information is available, then the article should be reconstructed. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game has been announced in a press release on THQ's website. There is enough infomation to keep the article. [4]Martin23230 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Relic [5]: "For more information on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II, please visit www.dawnofwar2.com [6]." This site will be up sometime today. Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fursun[edit]

Blatant hoax, listing awards this person simply has not won. Speedied several times already, appears to be autobiographical. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Clearly a blatant hoax (even if this guy is real), none of these claims is true at all -- and when you strip away the fluff and BS, you've got nothing. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google shows that he has presence on a lot of download sites but I am not seeing independent coverage. I find it rather sad that people think that they can become famous simply by claiming to be. Fursun needs to spend more time working on his hip-hop records and less time bigging himself up here. If he does then maybe, one day, he really will deserve an article here and somebody else will write it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional with national team caps[edit]

This is an unmaintainable list that seems to be attempting to glorify the players that play in the Salvadoran top division. Furthermore, by restricting the list to current players, the list is subject to WP:RECENT. – Pee Jay 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took awhile to figure out the premise of the list, but essentially it's about current players in the El Salvador soccer league who have been on the first squad of one of El Salvador's national team, or the team of another nation. I liken it to a list of current NFL players who were starters in a Pro Bowl. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand what the list is about, but why is it necessary? El Salvador is not a big footballing nation, and making a list of players in the Salvadoran top division who have played international football seems to be giving the impression that it is. – Pee Jay 08:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number 57. --Angelo (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. Punkmorten (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO BanRay 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back garden[edit]

No notability. I appreciate that WP has articles on other type of gardens such as 'rose garden' and 'vegetable garden', but these are defined areas with defined content. This article seems to be non-encyclopedic, with much of the information speculative (such as size). Perhaps suitable for transfer to Wiktionary ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article author has entered a somewhat copious rationale for keeping the article on the articles talk page. I'll admit I should probably have "a deeper and more profound understanding of what an encyclopedia is, and s/he at the moment does not understand the encyclopedia-ising process." - which is why I have submitted this for peer review. CultureDrone (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely unencyclopedic. I can't see this as a viable article... This, for me, is one of the few articles that would fall into the catagory of "referenced but still original research".--Pmedema (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I change my mind. The article should be merged into Garden and a redirect pointing to it.--Pmedema (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the following put on my talk page:

"Why is "back garden" unencyclopedic, whatever that means. Your picture depicts you against a snowfield. If I look up that in wikipedia is rhere such an entry. You bet there is." Chasnor15 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

my answer - No... Im on a FROZEN LAKE. No there isn't an article called Frozen Lake. I still say, how can you make the general term "Back Garden" notable (not to exclude all general terms). I might as well make an article called "Desk sizes". There's lots of WP:N there and lots of WP:RS trust me.... you will get a million ghits... Lets remember everyone... this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Back Garden is un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of desk forms and types for more sizes and shapes of desk than you can imagine. Gardens seem comparatively neglected. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh...so Back Garden should then be part of List of gardens then. Great! Make it so number one!--Pmedema (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Back gardens are very notable, existing in their millions and being covered by many hundreds of sources. They differ from other gardens in their seclusion. They are given special treatment by the sources and so we may do likewise. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. I'd never heard this term, but it does appear to be fairly widely used and notability via sources doesn't appear to be a concern. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is less a type of garden than a manifestation of urban architecture. There are only a few US cities with anything similar, but it's ubiquitous in urban Britain. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that building plots are more rectangular in Britain than in the USA, where they may be more square-shaped. Some of the sources do talk about the USA too though so it may be regional. Perhaps the difference arises because the equivalent space in the USA is usually occupied by a swimming pool rather than a garden. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Colonel Warden - as has been shown on many other WP articles, a large number of Google hits isn't by itself proof of notability as defined by WP:N. I modified the query you used above on Google Books to look for "Green Elephant" - and I got 618 hits - so I expect to see a Wikipedia article on Green Elephants any time now :-) Ok - only joking - but I hope you see my point :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Green Eyed Elephant close enough? There is also a play by the name "Green Elephant" which seems to have enough reviews to make it notable. Maybe I'll make that page :-) Hobit (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an article with potential- I can't imagine there isn't a great deal of landscaping and architecture information specific; maybe even political ramifications, land value impact, etc. Per the comments about the U.S. above, I'd also propose making back yard a redirect to it if it's kept. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect of back yard would be a mistake - the two are distinct (not all back yards are gardens). Someone looking for back yard may well not be looking for information about gardens. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 3). - Philippe 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Leuschner[edit]

American Idol contestant who didn't make the Top 12, ergo not notable. Nothing in bio establishes other notability. Wizardman 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the third season of the show. JJL (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 3). Not notable enough to warrant an article. I noticed that only two semi-finalists of group 2 have articles, and it's because there's other notable television appearances, albums recorded, etc. that the article is based on - not just being an American Idol semi-finalist reaching below the Top 10. --JamieS93 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Lisa is arguably the most successful non-finalist in Idol history. She was listed among the top 20 Idols of All Time by a media critic this winter, placing ahead of many well known performers. http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2008/01/11/top-20-idol-contestants-of-all-time-20-lisa-leuschner/ Her recording of "One in a Million" reached number One for 3 weeks in 2007 on the internet radio station, IDOL WAVES. "One in a Million" finished 11th in the year long rankings (see Idol Waves chart history) and "Sweet Thing", the Chaka Khan song she performed in the American Idol semi-finals also finished in the top 100 Idol Waves chart for 2007. http://www.idolwaves.com/charts Lisa's fiery red hair, curvaceous figure and winning smile were just memorialized by international skate board artist, Todd Bratrud on a series of boards, calendars and other items being marketed. http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/company-news/volcom/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=50571 To delete Lisa from Wikipedia, when she has made much more of a splash and released more albums than most of the Idol finalists, would be a travesty. Tadburger (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadburger (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Time(novel)[edit]

I think that this book fails all of the notability criteria for books. There are zero Google hits for this book and its author. I prodded this article, but the article creator removed the prod without comment. Bláthnaid 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sold about 10 copies". I think that says it all. PC78 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article asserts non-notability. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should be db-nocontext'd. NN VERY short article without references or citations.--Pmedema (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The "sold about 10 copies" got me. Izzy007 Talk 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If "sold about 10 copies" is for real, it could go for a speedy-delete (A7, possibly A1). Nothing really appears notable about the topic. --JamieS93 01:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sold about 10 copies". Do we need to take in to account it at least made it to double figures, maybe?. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ten of them. NN. Could have been a speedy. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if they only sold ten copies, then, it's not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. However, this might just simply be a fake. Unknown User (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball Theory[edit]

I put a proposed deletion tag on this with this reason:

No evidence that this theory ever existed - see Google web, scholar, books and news results.

An IP user removed the prod tag so it has to go to AfD because it is contested, even though someone else reverted the removal. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter bollocks. There may be an obscure physics joke in here; Buchdahl was a phenomenologist who wrote a noted article on atomic theory, but did not propose his own theory so far as I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research with no reliable sources and does not make any sense unless you are a Pinball Wizard!?!? --Pmedema (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internally inconsistent: this article claims that "J. Mueller" is a pseudonym for Buchdahl, who died in 2001, but the article Jay Mueller (currently WP:PROD tagged) claims that Mueller is still alive (and was born in 1978). At least pick a story and stick to it, people. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CB --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP --- I suspect that this is a hoax by some students of Mr. Mueller. Bm gub (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm amazed there is no speedy tag of some sort in the pages history. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to "keep". - Philippe 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) delete. I've changed my closing based upon confirmation that Mr. Lacey did not, in fact, win an Emmy, and therefore does not meet notability requirements. - Philippe 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Michael Lacey[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable actor, pretty much all roles uncredited or very minor. Polly (Parrot) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely more than an extra. Regular role as a Secret Service Agent in The West Wing is about the most high-profile thing he's done (I assume he occasionally had lines). --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion, This site has just been started and needs time to come in accordance with Wikipedia regulations.

I think Aaron Michael Lacey should be included because he is a 2 time Emmy Award honored actor and has worked on over 200 TV and Movie projects. He is a notable and still working actor. I have actually seen him on tv and film, I know he starred on over 60 episodes of In Our Lives, had featured roles and bit parts. The most high-profile thing he's done (I am guessing is he was honored 2 times by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Page is full of "uncredited" claims. If subject was not credited, then it cannot be listed here. Google search to try to verify claims of an Emmy revealed a regional Emmy in D.C, but only from user-submitted sites. Sources provided are user-submitted database sites, and are not generally accepted per WP:RS as reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion, Emmy regional Emmy in D.C. verified through the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Washington DC Regional Emmy Awards May 11, 1991 and December 14, 1991 call Silver Spring Maryland contact 301 587 3993 President Sue Ann Strake for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken out all the "Inclusion" (apparently = "Keep") !votes other than the first by this user. One gets only one boldfaced recommendation. Deor (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion, uncredited parts can be deleted, however the actor is still in the motion picture and/or paid full salary for the work, how are those parts listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Inclusion, over 250 external links have been erased which verified certain information, this is noted for the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Many of those external links were broken or contained no information beyond the subject's name. It would be better to include just a few very good external links than many that are no good at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is increasingly evident that the subject and the author may be the same person. That brings into concern conflict of interest concerns. The growing list of "uncredited" credits is getting longer and longer. This is completely unnecessary, no matter what the final outcome of the AfD may be. These appear to be credits as extras. Extras are just that. Extra. Inherently non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Brian has a great point, I am in no way a representative or agent of the subject, however I have been following his career for several years and took an interest in one of my film classes. What is the count of uncredited credits versus starring credits, did I even get them right? What are the definitions of Extra for America, in Europe here their are no extra people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Almost none of them are "starring" credits. They are almost all as extras. And nearly all of them are unnecessary and bog down the page. You do not need to list every episode of every series he may have appeared in. It's overkill. DarkAudit (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. According to IMDb, most of the subject's film and television appearances have been in uncredited roles or as characters without personal names ("Truck Worker", "Russian Guard", "National Guardsman"). His most significant role appears to have been in a television series titled In Our Lives which ~~reportedly ran for 14 years but apparently failed to leave any impression on the Internet other than its IMDb entry~~ apparently aired only locally in one area. The fact that the article was created by User:AMLFILMS about someone whose initials are "AML" and makes "FILMS" continues to raise conflict of interest concerns in my mind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my screenname stands for American Medical Labs where I work and Films is my minor at Johns Hopkins University, unfortunately I have never made a film in my life. Again there is no similarity or connection with the subject. What I think is overkill is the structure of the format, however that can be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I could be wrong. But if you think that the current structure of the article is overkill (in terms of repeating the same names and titles over and over again), I agree with that. The same information could easily be conveyed more efficiently in terms of number of words and lines used, and if the article were edited that way, it might help the article here, at least a little, in this Articles for Deletion discussion. But that is a separate issue from notability, which is still in doubt. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's apparently trying to take writing, directing, and producing credits for a film called La Cudata. A google search for that name comes up with the Italian title for Downfall (film). Triple Trouble was released in 1918. The names may come up in searches, but not at all in the same context as this article. DarkAudit (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Google searches for "In Our Lives" only gives the IMDB page. The listing for "In Our Lives" seems to be far too Aaron Michael Lacey-centric to be authentic. Since IMDB is user-submitted, I have strong doubts about the veracity of the existence of the program. DarkAudit (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more digging shows that the show may have aired on WUSA, then known as WTOP/WDVM [7]. Even that page only deems it worthy of passing mention. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources about the subject, and no significant roles -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I found trailers for the films in question on youtube. If you type in Aaron Michael Lacey on you tube you can actually view the trailers for some of the films, I also found a site with stills of the actor in the movies he claims to be in http://aaronmichaellacey.actorsite.com/photo.html hope this helps.AMLFILMS (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not. You need verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You've given us his home page. Not independent. You've given us YouTube. Not at all reliable. Nothing you've given us so far is usable in any way whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly written article but the subject is notable.Callelinea (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you figure that? We have nothing but roles as extras and multiple unverified claims. Not one reliable, verifiable, or independent source has been provided. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment In my research the 250 web links posted to the article and then, strangely, was erased. Let me know if you want a list of them again. Also, his starring roles were erased as well. The erasing of the verifiable sites probably were a computer glitch. I would be happy to post them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are still in the edit history. Nearly every single one of them is a user-submitted site. I hate to sound harsh, but linking 250 references for an actor who has done virtually nothing but extra roles for the last 15 or so years is ludicrous. The links won't change that reality. Wikipedia is not variety or The Hollywood Reporter. DarkAudit (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of those links were either broken or contained minimal information. You would be much better off finding some better sources rather than just reposting those links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with all you guys he is notable. Who in their right mind would list detailed work that was not true? If he did do that he should have listed himself in blockbuster movies. Also, whoever wrote this article, I think Parot, you need to write more then just two sentences and you need to format the movie. Thanks, Carl. Gorfocsid (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— Gorfocsid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- He did list himself as being in the blockbuster movies Forrest Gump and Transformers, two of the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time -- as well as other prominent movies such as Dave, In the Line of Fire, Twelve Monkeys, and Live Free or Die Hard. But according to IMDb, his roles in most of those movies were uncredited and probably non-speaking. Being an extra, even in popular movies, is normally not enough to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Despite a sizable filmography, he appears to be little more than an extra, and I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sources that might establish notability. It would be helpful if a decent ref (i.e. not IMDb) could be found for his Emmy win, and it would also be nice to know what it says about him in the print source. Incidentally, I did find an article about him on the French Wiki (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Michael_Lacey) which has been around for about two years, though it doesn't appear to add anything to our own. PC78 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I must assume good faith, but "American Medical Labs" does not exist. Not in that form at least. The primary author has been completely unable to reasonably provide anything remotely satisfactory to WP:RS. Author was told that self-published and user submitted sources were unacceptable, yet persisted in trying to supply more of the same after being told. All evidence points to author and subject being one and the same, in spite of denials. Nothing has been found to confirm authors claim of Emmy awards. DarkAudit (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brian, since you have a personal issue with existence, you are telling me, this does not exist? Do you exist?

American Medical Laboratories, Inc. 14225 Newbrook Drive P.O. Box 10841 Chantilly Virginia 20153-0841 U.S.A. Phone: 703-802-6900 Fax: What do you mean nothing has been found to confrim this guys Emmy Awards, I gave you the number. Emmy regional Emmy in D.C. verified through the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Washington DC Regional Emmy Awards May 11, 1991 and December 14, 1991 call Silver Spring Maryland contact 301 587 3993 President Sue Ann Strake for verification. Can you restate what you told me? I am starting to believe this is more of a personal issue for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs)

Delete as poorly sourced BLP, Wikipedia:RESUME Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Phone calls and emails WUSA and the Chesapeake Bay branch of NATAS only confirmed that the show existed and it won some awards. Nothing specific on who. Awaiting further response from NATAS after request for the relevant dates. Of course, a phone call or an e-mail would not be considered a reliable, verifiable source. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is an extra who has also done some manual labor around movie sets. He is in no way a notable actor. I have searched the entire historical archive of Google News for this guy and have come up with exactly ZERO HITS: [8]. If he were indeed any kind of notable actor, there would have been at least one news article about him since the beginning of time, and there hasn't been even one single thing about him. I'm also going to start investigating some of the accounts that have been commenting here, because they are starting to look like WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SOCK. Qworty (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain presidential eligibility[edit]

POV fork, belongs in the main article John McCain or the article about his campaign. Having an entire seperate article for something that at best should be commented on briefly smacks of undue weight. -- Naerii 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – Agree with nominator. This is a fork and should be part of the main article. . Eligibility, is an extremely Point Of View and has no place as a stand-alone piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete if people want to add this material they need to do so at ~~John Mccain and/or~~ John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 which is well watched and not create a fork where they can say whatever they want in privacy, including BLP vios. If this is an issue its going to get plenty of coverage which should be covered at the main article and if tyhe news isn't notable it won't get mentioned there. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 where this is already adequately addressed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Do not merge this with John McCain, because it is insufficiently notable for John McCain. It should be covered (if at all) in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect ~~merge if appropriate~~ to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you delete and redirect something? (to anyone advocating such)-- Naerii 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete violates the GFDL, but delete and redirect does not. There's a difference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So confusing. Thanks Dhartung. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that would be merge and redirect ...? -- Naerii 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete and redirect, that means that the current content and edit history of John McCain presidential eligibility would be deleted. Then a new John McCain presidential eligibility would be created with nothing but a redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John McCain Dreamspy (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a controversial subject that the campaign does not want to discuss and it is better to keep it in a separate article. It is actually not a part of the presidential campaign, so much so that here two years into the campaign I just learned that it was even an issue just a few days ago when I was reading over the McCain talk page (talk:John McCain) and found a request to create the page, along with some advice on what to include. I would prefer to bury the topic in a aubarticle - as someone pointed out, less than 1 in 100 click on any of the subarticles, and I think the McCain campaign would prefer to do that as well. Right now no links have been made to the article because I am waiting for it to get a few more contributors to add to it. It certainly is in no way shape or manner a "fork". It is an in-depth treatment of the subject, and is vitally important to Wikipedia to keep. Almost all controversial topics get nominated for AfD, but that is just a vane attempt to squash any treatment of the subject. "Something that at best should be commented on briefly" is the entire reason for burying the topic in a subarticle, while allowing a full treatment of the subject. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How is it controversial – it is being addressed. Second, the piece is two sentences long. This is better served as part of the main article. List it under controversy it will be more accessible, than having an individual having to type in John McCain presidential eligibility in the search criteria. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't been following the Ron Paul campaign. Controversy sections are not a good idea because just calling something a controversy draws undo attention. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment. This matter is discussed, or has been discussed, at John McCain, Early life and military career of John McCain, John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, Natural born citizen, Panama Canal Zone, Coco Solo, and probably other places I haven't seen. The advantage of this article, had it been created well enough to survive AfD, would be that it would relieve all these other articles of WP:Undue weight problems and editing churn. Oh well. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a stub. It could have been created with only one sentence. Or even one word. "Had it been created well enough to survive" is not a valid point. There have been more contributors to this discussion than the article. I would ask everyone to go work on the article and then come back and discuss keeping it. And by work on it I mean add to it, not delete from it, please. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, with an article like this, you've got one shot, one opportunity to put together something that sells itself as comprehensive, balanced, and necessary. You don't, it's off to Deletopedia for your efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I left a note about this AfD at Talk:John McCain and Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Work on it how? As you even stated, the article can be done in just one sentence! There is nothing to work on as a separate piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting what I said. All articles, for example United States can be created with one sentence, or even one word, and then added to by other editors. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It duplicates Natural-born citizen. -- Zsero (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know that it should be excluded from John McCain or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, but at most it merits a sentence. I'm a Democrat and even I have to admit it's preposterous to interpret the wording to exclude someone like McCain. A full article is undue weight for the amount of serious discussion this has received. It's a parlor game, nothing more. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Democrat. You would want it to be included in the above articles. Most people for McCain would prefer it not even be mentioned. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it would also violate WP:NPOV because non-inclusion fails to give due weight. — scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, 2ndAmendment. Tell me why I didn't vote to keep the article, then. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strong WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. Due weight would be about a sentence or at most a paragraph in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. — scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As POV fork and as above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John McCain. POV forking is not an approved way of settling disputes over what content should be included. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to relevant John McCain article. I don't see how you can go beyond one paragraph about this topic. Either he's eligible or he's not. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John McCain or Keep. Wasted Time's suggestion to proceed in this fashion was well thought out and still seems to make sense, although I have always thought this is important enough for the main BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary to have such a short article when it can be discussed in one of the existing articles. There is no chance of McCain being declared ineligible, especially once McCaskill's bill passes. Clinton and Obama are co-sponsors. Paisan30 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable non-debate. No evidence this is a notable issue.--Doc^g 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the McCain article. It's one of the many interesting aspects of John McCain, who falls under a lot of different categories, including "Zonians", "Vietnam prisoners of war" and "torture victims". As with George Romney, the natural-born citizen argument could be made, although it's unlikely that it actually would be. Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is unnecessary, and POV. I tried to add balance to the article (a contention from the United States Code) and it was deleted. There is some obvious POV at work. Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John McCain. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the John McCain article pretty recently, and would advise against merging it with that article for length's sake. Secondly, a merge to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 would also not be in good taste, because it is well covered within there. Happyme22 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not covered there, because it has not been a campaign issue. All it says is "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the United States (he was born in Panama within the Panama Canal Zone)", nothing at all about eligibility. Ironically the only person to have been elected in violation of a natural born requirement was Ricardo Maduro, who was also born in Panama. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ironic that Maduro was also born in Panama, and in that case it was the major theme in Honduran politics for months but became President anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article uses a tortured synthesis of legal sources to suggest a degree of uncertainty that does not exist. Blackstone does not define who is a US citizen by birth. The 14th amendment and federal statutes do, and as the Canal Zone article says, Congress settled the question in 1953. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I debated adding this to the article, but decided against expanding an article which doesn't need to exist. Within the Blackstone natural-born citizen information is this little tidbit shortly after the section which 2ndAmendment added to the article. [T]hat all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England:William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62 So even by blackstone he would be classified as a natural-born citizen. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be careful what you ask for. You sometimes get it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Vints (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you want to make the case that McCain is not a natural born citizen, the place to do that is a federal court of law, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to report on the topic, one sentence in McCain's article will do.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The very notion that John McCain is not eligible to be president because he was born in the US controlled canal zone is in my view ludicrous, and has indeed been dismissed by McCain's detractors as well as supporters. Since the NYT has run articles on this thing, a thing which ought to be a non-issue, we can mention the question in the article on McCain's campaign, but WP:UNDUE concerns indicate that the coverage should be brief. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per above, this minor note can be covered better in other articles; this one is full of OR also. - Merzbow (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about OR. Reference #s 1 and 2 [9]are the most useful for a RS encyclopedia and could be used in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - only way to handle this non-issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. — Athaenara ✉ 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless POV fork. It's up to the editors to decide what, if any, article this information belongs in. Come January or so this will probably be considered trivia anyway (I don't have a crystal ball, that's just what I think!). daveh4h 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in with John McCain's Presidential Campaign.Callelinea (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing new or important discussed here. Yahel Guhan 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Creator's Userspace There hasnt been much mention about this from Republicans or Democrats. It's not notable yet, but it could be later on after more sources are attributed. Arnabdas (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. That's where it is addressed, and where it should be addressed. thezirk (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. Nonsense, hoax, vandalism, BLP, A7... J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martinez[edit]

Compltely fails WP:BIO. Not notable... Milk's Favorite Cookie : Chat 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskaravelho[edit]

Apparently a non-notable band. It's unclear whether they have released any albums. There's one source in a student newspaper, but beyond that, secondary sources are missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a source in Portuguese which suggests they have released one EP and have an album coming out. No really significant coverage found. Even Rockdetector only has a list of band members.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all to Aghabullogue GAA. No merge, as the contents of the identical articles is already in the merge target. Black Kite 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aghabullogue hurlers[edit]

(View AfD)

Jer Henchion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Drew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Buckley (Aghabullogue hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Looney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tom Toomey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Horgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thady O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pat Buckley (Aghabullogue hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Kelleher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Sullivan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Denis Horgan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a series of 13 unreferenced articles on hurlers in the early days of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). They were members of the Aghabullogue GAA club which, having won the county championship, represented Cork GAA in the 1890 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship: the article are identical in every respect apart from the names of the individuals and inconsistency in tagging and categorisation. None of the articles contains any individual information at all about the person concerned ... apart from the claim that in each case the person was "Born in Aghabullogue, County Cork", which seems to be nothing more than supposition.

I recommend deletion rather than merger because there is no referenced material to merge. If someone with appropriate sources want to work on this area, then the players could be listed in an article on Aghabullogue GAA and/or All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship 1890 ... if the references are available to write one. However, this collection of unreferenced clones is the sort of thing that bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

If these articles are deleted, the Template:Cork Hurling Team 1890 will be orphaned and should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Aghabullogue_hurlers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Ireland winners and cork's notable ,Winners of ones the top prizes in Irish sport Gnevin (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge changing vote as BHG says they are just clones. Merge to All-Ireland Senior Hurling Champions 1890 and redirect articles to their Gnevin (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This collection of cloned stubs article says nothing about the players which could not be said in a list, and some of what is said is probably inaccurate; the rest belongs in an article on the club, not copied into 13 pseudo-biographies. I have no objection to the articles being recreated if there is referenced info available on them, but there is no point an articles unless there is something verifiable to put in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin, your merge proposal doesn't solve the problem that there is no referenced material to merge, and no article to merge to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created at least the beginnings of an article on Aghabullogue GAA, so perhaps they could be merged into this? Tameamseo (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merger to Aghabullogue GAA seems fine, now that the article exists. BTW, congrats on including references; I have been assessing articles for WikiProject Ireland, and I'm sorry to say that the overwhelming majority of the GAA articles I encountered were completely unreferenced, and the majority of the other GAA articles were inadequately referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aghabullogue GAA. Pluswhich (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for referencing as the tags for references were applied the day before listing. While online references will be sparse for the time period covered by the articles, contemporaneous references are available offline. We have thousands of articles with {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} tags from two and three years ago and should go after them first. I would also hesitate to add to Wikipedia's systemic bias with a too-fast deletion here. B.Wind (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If they are merged, nothing will be lost. Merger is not a one-way trip, and if someone then finds the sources to allow expansion of the coverage of any individual, then the material on that person can be unmerged to a separate article. As to your argument that that there is other unreferenced stuff, I rather despair :( Apart from reminding you of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, where is the systemic bias in dealing with unreferenced material as and when we find it? Every time an editor opens an edit page to crate a new article, they are reminded that unreferenced material may be deleted: do you want to change WP:V so that we can amend that say something like "unless referenced within a year or so"? Most unreferenced material which I encounter I simply tag and leave if there appears to be some likelihood of notability, but it's up to the editor who creates an article to supply references which establish notability, not to others to tidy up a sub-stub ... and in this case there was a series of cloned articles with nothing about the individuals apart from their names. If you want to go and work on the two-year-unreferenced articles and bring them to AFD, that's be great work ... but it's no reason to keep these clones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You claim no systemic bias when there, in fact, is. These went to AfD one to two days after being flagged for references, unlike most such flagged artticles, which are still flagged one, two, or even three years later. Contemporaneous material supporting the material predate the Internet by at least 90 years, and this is not North American or British but Irish in nature (please see WP:Bias and you'll see why it does fit my claim of systemic bias). While you claim no systemic bias, the quickness of this going to AfD is evidence of such. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is concerned, you might want to review that essay as to its applicability in this discussion. There is no need for a stampede here. B.Wind (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm rather bemused to find myself being apparently accused of anti-Irish bias, particularly when it's only a few hours since I was accused of pro-Irish bias, but that's life.
      More seriously, though, there is a limit to how much systemic bias can be corrected, because if we rely on sources, that inevitably creates a bias to eras when much was recorded. We are never to going to have comprehensive coverage of sportspeople in Ancient Egypt, because scarce papyrus was not used to create squillions of copies of match reports. You seem to be presuming that somewhere out there, there must be printed sources on the individuals, but given the deep poverty of that area of Cork at the time, I think that's a very risky presumption.
      However, the systemic bias charge is in fact a distraction from the reason why I nominated these article for deletion rather than others, which is that they are simply clones -- and it defies probability that these hurlers all had identical biographies. I really think that before lazily reaching for the WP:BIAS charge sheet, you could have assumed good faith and/or had the courtesy look at my contribs list: I have tagged as unreferenced many hundreds (possibly thousands) of Irish articles in the last fortnight as part of more than 5000 I have assessed as part of WP:IE's WP1.0 assessment drive, including dozens (probably over about 200) GAA articles, and probably even more of footballers. Look again at the nomination, and you'll see the reason why these particular articles were AFDed, and not all the others.
      And finally, now that we have somewhere to merge to, from where the articles can be unmerged if and when sources are found, what purpose is served by retaining 13 unreferenced cloned articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tameamseo. If, in the future, somebody wants to write articles that are actually about the team members individually (such as indicating when they were born, when they died, etc.) rather than identical duplicative articles, we can reconsider those articles if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, but when sources appear, recreation of articles would be perfectly acceptable to me Hobit (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; doesn't appear to demonstrate any notability. Black Kite 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDX (file format)[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while it may be an actual file type, it really doesn't require its own article. Perhaps it could be merged if an appropriate article was located for it, but it currently isn't notable enough to get its own. FusionMix 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Perhaps we could merge it into an article with this, provided it isn't deleted. What do people think? FusionMix 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge, while it may currently not have sources, it is an important format because of its use by Blizzard in many of its RTS games. The article is informative and it is valuable for those interested in the inner workings of games. This isn't an oddball format by some company no one has heard of, this is Blizzard Entertainment. Rilak (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no references, how can you claim its notable? And why should we believe that? After all, just because the game is notable and the company is notable does not make this notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of sticking a delete tag on every single article which has no references, why don't you find some? There are thousands of articles with a tag that says that it "contains unverified information that should be referenced, please help." I don't see why that you can claim that it is not notable just because there are no references now and because you have not heard of it. Please see the talk pages in one of the kinds of articles, I've added detailed rationale for its inclusion. Rilak (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, there are thousands, and we should work tirelessly to elimintate that kind of stuff, by cleaning articles, rewriting, sourcing, and yes deleting. Just because many articles suck doesn't mean this one is ok to keep being non-notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just becuase it is a 'difficult' task, it does not mean that you take the easy way out and delete it. Notify the appropriate editors and they will fix whatever concerns you may have. Rilak (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the concern is lack of notability, this is the fix. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into MPQ as per that article's AfD

Keep, unless a source explicitly says something is "notable", it all comes down to personal opinion — and even then it's just an opinion we can attribute to someone. In my opinion, this file format is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the whole point of what I am saying; it is NEVER a personal opinion. Either there are references or there aren't, and people have to accept that fact one way or another, for keep or delete. There are currently no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual file formats aren't generally notable unless there's clear evidence that they're widely used and/or important, preferably from reliable sources. The same applies to .BLP. It's possible that a combined article on the file formats used by the WarCraft games could be notable, but I certainly don't think we need an article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proprietary file formats used by a single developer in its products are not encyclopedic subjects. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hate to be in the minority here, however if we do a Google News search, as shown here, [10], we see that the file format is covered by reliable – independent – 3 rd source – and creditable sources. At worst case, this piece should be merged. Personally, I think keep. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is confusion here (at least in GHITS terms) as there is a nearly-obsolete MDX format that was part of dBase (multiple index file). It has nothing to do with the Blizzard MDX. I don't think either is independently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – your right about the DBase – In fact that caught my eye when I was searching for articles. However, though I did not look at all the pieces in the search, I believe the format discussed in the article under this Afd, was mentioned several times. Will look later and reassess. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the Google News Archive hits for "mdx+blizzard" are for the Acura MDX. Which apparently you want to buy if you have to drive in one. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is worth saving here? No references, very little content. If this is to be salvaged, it should be rewritten to state what the file format is. B.Wind (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be non-notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weakly kept.--Kubigula (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkula[edit]

I see no assertion of notability in compliance with WP:MUSIC. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple sources, but they don't seem quite enough to meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to scrape through criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC (coverage in multiple reliable sources). He doesn't pass that criterion by very much, but at least there's something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety ^talk 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/undecided. Some evidence of coverage from first couple of pages of Google results, plus the 2 sources in the article, may be enough. Coverage seems pretty localised but there's a fair bit around.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Basically for the reasons stated above, I don't see any news coverage [11]. However, [12], [13], [14] suggest localized/regional notability, barely qualifying the article for WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article establishes notability as per WP:MUSIC#C7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Brundage[edit]

None of the claims to importance on the page usually lead to the kind of significant coverage by reliable sources required for a subject to meet the primary notability guideline or the specific guideline for people. I can find no evidence that this person is an exception. Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 - notability not asserted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no real claim to notability, let alone references to prove it.--Michig (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry – could find no references other than Wikipedia. However, kudos to the young man! He has certainly accomplished more in his 17 years, than most people in an entire lifetime. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, no significant assertion of notability. I'd tag it for that but the nominator already removed an a7 tag. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Not-So-Speedy Close (incorrect AFD) (non admin close) . Dusti^{talk to me} 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin Joe (The Horrors)[edit]

Not a notable person for a stand-alone article. Contents would be acceptable as merged into The Horrors. Hellno2 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Articles for Deletion is not for merging issues. If you feel that the page should be merged, I would recommend {{merge}} instead of {{afd1}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TPH. You should be bold and merge it yourself. While I agree with you that every member of the band with the exception of Faris Rotter isn't notable outside the band, AfD isn't the place to bring something that should be merged by your suggestion Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pretty good discussion, with a narrow keep consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Williams[edit]

Minor league player in the lowest of the lowest minor leagues. Nothing in the article to claim notability, even being MVP of the minor minor league isn't that notable. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holds several records in the Frontier League as well as the GBL and is thus far more notable than a random member of those minor leagues. Article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tiptoety ^talk 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on Player of the Year and All-star appearance. Gsearch isn't giving really great coverage, though. :(--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor league baseball players are non-notable. If he were a Triple A player and participated in the All Star Game, than that might sway me towards a keep vote, but short season single A are the lowest level of the minor leagues. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is playing in the Golden Baseball League. That seems to satisfy WP:ATHLETE... --Pmedema (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no consensus at WP:Baseball as to whether this level of play is a "fully professional league", as required in WP:ATHLETE. The season for the GBL is just 3 months long, and salary levels range from $750 per month to $3000 per month, meaning most players earn well less than $10,000 per year, and some players earn less than $2,500 per year. Some people hold that if you are paid the league is fully professional, while others feel that if you need another job just to pay rent and buy groceries, it's not fully professional.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Professional - a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs [15]. WP:ATHLETE makes no reference to the amount earned (or what they are going to do with their money). It says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" which Golden Baseball League seems to be in the catagory of... and that there is sufficient reference for the player. Here [16] is one of many... --Pmedema (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has already been decided that minor league all stars are notable. Mr. Peanut qualifies. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Generally speaking, full professors who are published are considered notable.. - Philippe 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Bulat[edit]

I had prodded this as the résumé of a non-notable person (and lacking in context), until I realized that Cambrasa (talk · contribs) had attempted to AfD it but never finished the process -- i.e., no discussion page was made, and no tag was placed on the page. Since technically an AfD was attempted, I figured that PROD didn't apply so I'm taking it here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unfinished AfD was apparently the result of a Twinkle error. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think this person is of good notability in Russia ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]. so it would be nice if we have some strong reason to delete this .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the university and the persons position this article needs a keep .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a long list - no sources or references Dreamspy (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No reliable and verifiable sources, per WP:RS and WP:V. No context; WP is not a resume database. Visor (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this isn't the place for curricula vitarum. If the person is in fact notable, no objection to a real article in prose, without an exhaustive list of every publication. Deor (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is possible he is a notable academic, but this needs to be totally rewritten. Per Deor, this is not a place for a CV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. Full Professor and Head of the Department at St. Petersburg State University, a very major Russian Univ., is notable. 9 books. Between that and the position shows that the experts in his field keep him notable. Needs to e rewritten, obviously. DGG (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment yup , this university and the person r both highly notable , so i wish this article need to be rewritten if such is needed .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. The professor can be notable but no notability claims were presented. Lets wait a couple of days what they would come up with Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ XIII General Session of the International Academy of Refrigeration - 2006 | Thermoelectric News
^ ZT-Spam for 19990305 (That's March 5, 1999) | International Thermoelectric Society
^ ZoomInfo Web Profile: Lev Bulat
^ GG

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scriptwriter's Life[edit]

Hard to see this as anything but an advertisement masquerading as an article. Self-help method for screenwriters, no real notability besides a few blog mentions (for those interested in Ghits, it registers 14 hits, including 3 from wikipedia and mirrors, the method's website, two from Tim Clague's blog (Clague is the author), one more mention also authored by Clague in a different website, two from blog aggregators and one completely unrelated technical Microsoft page. Note also that these blog mentions date back to 2006, so it's not like the lack of coverage is due to lack of time to catch on. Pichpich (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The lack of sources says it all here -- this is basically advertising disguising as an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hammer, this is an ad in sheep's clothing.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamburger Beeblbrox (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam only. --- Taroaldo (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Saturday[edit]

~~Not a notable film, fails WP:MOVIE.~~ The Dominator (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article now meets WP:MOVIE #3. The Dominator (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of film-related deletion discussions.The Dominator (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Keep - ~~You're joking, right?~~Notable director, first film of a notable writer, Peter McDougall, the film caused a sensation when it was shown - see the ~~director's~~writer's article "The finished film, .... proved to be a televisual masterpiece. It won massive acclaim, was repeated several times, and won its author the Prix Italia." Also notable for being Billy Connolly's acting debut. Need we go on? Camillus (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please enlighten me on which of the WP:CSK it meets? I only nominated ot because the article made no assertion of notability at the time. The Dominator (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I shouldn't have said "speedy" - the assertion of notability is in the ~~director's~~writer's article, and the fact that it was Billy Connolly's acting debut is in his article - article itself has to be edited to reflect this. I guess I was a bit hasty in my "speedy" as I remember this as creating quite a furore when it was first shown. Cheers. Camillus (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I still think that at least one reliable source on it is needed, I don't think it's even listed at IMDb, when I listed it, it didn't even say who the director was. I admit I didn't make the best of efforts to search for sources, but I didn't think that speedy was appropriate and I could see that PROD would be contested immediately I took it here, I'll try to look for a reliable source. The Dominator (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added imdb link and ref for winning the Prix Italia. Camillus (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. This film exists; it has a notable director, a notable cast. I know nothing about it personally but according to its Amazon review page it can be considered useful social history. Speaking personally, I rely on wikipedia to tell me about films I might not have seen but might consider watching, and films on Glasgow's social history count amongst this class. There might be an element of standard Wikipedia practice I'm missing here, but I can't see a reason to delete the page; it isn't as if the editor who wrote the page made the film in his basement. DuncanCrowe (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal I'm withdrawing this nom, article obviously asserts notability now, interesting how sometimes it takes an AfD to improve an article... The Dominator (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. non admin closure Cenarium^Talk 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy London[edit]

This article does not see to pass WP:Band. Has a couple of unsuccessful albums on an idie record label. A google news search found nothing [17] . Also a PROD tag which was placed on the article was deleted. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE For reasons above as nominator. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was previously tacked onto another one; I moved it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination in retaliation for the nomination of an article that he created. I explained the removal of the PROD tag. Jimmy London has had several chart hits in Jamaica and the UK, backed up by references, and albums on labels such as Trojan Records and its subsidiary Burning Sounds. Two good references demonstrating coverage in major works on the genre.--Michig (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did not explain why he removed the PROD tag. [18]and [19] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"remove WP:POINTy PROD tag - plenty of releases on large labels, evidence of significant coverage" isn't explaining? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I explained why I removed it.[20].--Michig (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Michig. Two sources in the article already assert notability; though the article needs major work, notability is quite clearly established in the article's existing condition. I say speedy keep per Michig's evidence that this is possibly a POINTy nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment poor references too Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then try {{refimprove}}, not {{afd1}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to be notable ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only valid reference there is [21], the other three are not reliable or valid. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references in the article, to published books by respected authors are both reliable and valid.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- so this person is notable under this reference [22] , so lets leave the editor to produce more .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. Dreamspy (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination appears to be in bad faith. Subject is notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. Needs either re-doing loads or deleteing. 22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhayes383 (talk • contribs)

Comment. The only other edits by this user are to their user page and communication with the nominator.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article establishes notability as per WP:MUSIC#C1. Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ Roots Archives - Artist : Jimmy London
^ Jimmy London vinyl records and CDs
^ YouTube - Jimmy London - It's Now Or Never - Trojan Reggae
^ Jimmy London – Listen free at Last.fm

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Ghost[edit]

Whilst I wish the artist much success, Stray Ghost does not yet seem to be notable -- one track has been produced, with others in the pipeline... – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant releases yet (two self-released EPs, one single in the pipeline), no other credits that would bring him up to WP:MUSIC criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK KEEP Barely passes WP:BAND. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the music is interesting, I don't feel a 5-track download and a planned future album is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC on releases, and I found no significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable musician. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he has two self-released e.p's?

One is coming out on a label called DeadPilot...the other or Highpointlowlife which has its own wiki page! He is also linked with Matthew Rozeik who has his own wiki page... Keep I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.234.1 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. - Philippe 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore Angels[edit]

Article was PRODded, but the tag was removed without explanation. Band with no albums, only 2 self-financed singles. Won a local battle of the bands, the prize for which was a £500 shopping spree - hardly a major competition. Nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. Michig (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources (at least among the ones in the article -- they look trivial to me); therefore, no chance of passing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article seems somewhat notable. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable as the band won a music competition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, a local competition where the prize is £500 is not a major music competition. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Cassette Demo (album)[edit]

Contested prod. Aside from the fact that this title could probably be applied to thousands of so-called albums, the article is unsourced and probably doesn't exist. It also fails WP:MUSIC even if it does exist. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for albums; wasn't officially released, reviewed, etc. and besides, it was just a demo tape. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Demos are rarely notable; this one makes zero claim of notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Beeblbrox (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Cassette Delete JuJube (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIKW[edit]

A statement on the article's talk page describes the situation perfectly:

"It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of User:Mazer. - Unique reference is a personal webpage... See: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV"

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be improved, but the underlying concept and initialism is in used in many books[23] and journal articles[24] so it is notable enough IMO. The article has a couple of journal references already. --Itub (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems obvious from the external links section (as of today) that there are substantial references to be found. Maybe it uses personal pages as links but it's not the authors of those pages that posted the article, hence this is not a WP:NOR violation. Heck, DIKW is in the acronym finder . Sbwoodside (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bintube Media Player & Newsreader[edit]

Not-notable, would nom for speedy if there was a cat. No RS. ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources cited in the article to establish notability and I do not think there are any to be found. The product is still in Beta and doesn't seem to have garnered much attention from either the mainstream or specialist press. Guest9999 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. However, I am concerned that the article was nominated for AfD 11 minutes after its creation. —BradV 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the opinions above this article should be deleted too Unison (Usenet client), and many others can be singled out as well.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byte backwards[edit]

Orphaned article since August 2006; no sources listed to support the notability of this term. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof that this is a notable term; doesn't appear to have been used in any reliable sources. Even so, it's a mere dicdef anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think this was used a "bit" in assembly-language programming, but the topic is covered at endianness. Most uses I found were not to internal byte order of a value but counting N bytes "backwards" from some point, i.e. not the meaning here at all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be found. I could find nothing that didn't point back to this article. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone disagrees with the four persons above, I can only ask that they be civil about it... please, no backbiting. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment word to the wise, a bit of sarcasm can byte you around here. :-) Hobit (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the term is real its rather obscure to have an article claiming its common. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavy Hitters[edit]

DJ crew with questionable notability, tagged as unsourced since June 2007. Has quite a few releases, but none of them strike me as passing WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, vandalism. - Bobet 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Banking, Inc.[edit]

Can one of "the leading and most powerful Banking firms in the world" with a "net worth of over $27 billion" really be so "low key, and very private" that it has no Google hits, and neither does its Chairman and CEO? I think this is a hoax; but if not, it certainly fails notability for lack of reliable sources. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Appears to fall under the category of blatant misinformation (hoax) to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure vandalism. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan bond[edit]

Potentially non-notable actor (Google search only turns up namesakes. No establishment of major appearances or proof of notable acting career. No references. Booglamay (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: references/external links have been added since the AfD notice was put in place. However, the link to the IMDB is to a Thomas Law, not Nathan Bond. ~~I'm confused~~ Comparing the two links, IMO the two people are different (most notably birthdates and credits do not match). Booglamay (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actor—we'd need to see evidence of some significant roles in order to keep this. Has the feel of a vanity page as it stands... The original editor also edited the Thomas Law article—I suspect he added the new links in error. – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The person who created the article has also vandalised other articles (here and here, for example), so it would seem that this isn't a serious attempt at creating a new article for Wikipedia. Also, the IMDb link added appeared to me to be an attempt to make the article outwardly appear to be about a notable actor (when, in fact, it was a link to somebody else). The Baroness of Morden (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macauley Christantus[edit]

Contested prod (by an IP with no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. [25] Although he has appeared on the subs bench, claiming that he will play for them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. In addition, consensus seems to be that youth caps do not confer notability. The article can be easily restored by an admin as soon as he does cross the threshold. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; in addition, the guy is actually named "Chrisantus", not Christantus. --Angelo (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know the original article with the name "Chrisantus" was deleted, but now that this article is going thru AfD, I want to point out that this player was the top scorer of 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Wouldn't he deserve an article for that? AR TYOM 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. He never played at a professional level, and playing at the under-17 level is definitely not notable itself, even if the subject happened to be topscorer in an international competition (which is something that disadvantages footballers who play in a role different than striker, by the way). --Angelo (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it didn't prevent Cesc Fabregas from winning the golden boot at the U-17 World Cup several years ago :-) ugen64 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter racism. Chrisantus played professional football in Nigeria prior to his move to Hamburg. Furthermore, he was the highest goal scorer and winner of the Golden boot in the FIFA U-17 World Cup. If Players like Fran Merida and Bojan have pages on this website, you have no serious grounds to say Chrisantus should not. I am going to create the page all over again and woe betide the person that comes here to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamisa (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pickett[edit]

This article was speedy tagged as {{db-band}}, but as the myspace page indicates this musician is on a national tour, I thought there might be borderline notability per WP:MUSIC. Thoughts? Skomorokh 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band he played in is a red link and doesn't appear to be notable. The singer himself doesn't seem to have any notability yet per WP:MUSIC; no proof that he's currently touring, or that he's doing anything that might meet the criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Who? NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. As TPH says... the band is red linked and is not notable. --Pmedema (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Stompin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gator Stompin'

I am sure this event is great larks for the Florida students but bottom line is that it is just a non-notable university pub crawl. Can find no reliable sources beyond the local paper - google news has one hit for "gator stompin". nancy ^(talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of Florida Beeblbrox (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment is there a corollary to the snowball clause for when it's obvious no one cares? Perhaps a tumbleweed clause? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Neitherday (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Dawod[edit]

Non-notable kingpin/trafficker/rapper. 2 ghits, 0 articles. Article fails WP:V, WP:RS. CSD was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. {{nn-bio}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried that exact CSD, but it was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently whoever declined didn't read that the "critically acclaimed" album wasn't sourced as being "critically acclaimed" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the speedy delete criteria does it say that the indication of importance/significance has to be sourced. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that declining was the correct thing to do. The claim of notability is there, so prod or AfD are the way to go.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in article to back up notability claims, gsearch isn't coming up with notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and WP:SNOW. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Singh Bhella[edit]

Totally non-notable and pointless page Dixonsej (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. See WP:CSD, Criteria A7. No encyclopedic notability. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, falls under A7 - no asserted notability in the biography. JamieS93 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 for total lack of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAA Family[edit]

This article on a "family" of mascots is an excuse to promote some blogs and other promotional websites. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems to be an add type work , fails its notability , at least not for English wiki . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral to the deletion, but someone pointed out in the article Talk page that the blog used as a source for the article is the official blog of SCAA, so while notability is questionable, I think the article is well-sourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The blogs sourced in the article are not promotional websites. They are official channels for Hong Kong football club SCAA for releasing news of the club. Checkiema (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they are official promotional websites.... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who cares? How can SCAA specifically benefit from it? Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like Kingsley Royal, a football club mascot's article can be kept here. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kingsley Royal has third party citations or it would be deletable too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe you should suggest rewriting this page. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure the topic is non-notable, because I couldn't find any sources. Topics on non-notable articles are to be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe you should learn Chinese language. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, User:Hikikomori.hk is welcome to try and promote the SCAA Family on the Chinese Wikipedia, where it appears to be part of the SCAA page rather than having its own article. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article has been tagged for rescue. The topic is encyclopedic, but it needs citations from independent, reliable sources. Deleting this immediately promotes the systematic bias of Wikipedia as being Euro-American biased; on the other hand, author of the article could be a bit more helpful in finding alternative citation sources - after all, wasn't Hong Kong under English control for about a century? B.Wind (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep hardly surprising that we're here on AfD given that the article creator has not bothered to cite a single intellectually independent, reliable source; some such sources (a few newspaper articles) seem to exist, but they're hard to find among all the youtube videos, blogs, and forum posts ...
- "南華吉祥物與市民接觸 (SCAA mascots get up close with city residents)", Ta Kung Pao, 2007-11-27; can't seem to access it directly but its headline shows up on their website [26]
- "南華吉祥物面世 (SCAA mascots make their debut)", Apple Daily, 2007-09-21; you need a subscription to access Apple Daily, but again, googling on the title of the article at least proves that the source exists [27]

Cheers, cab (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article is sourced only to the team's web site and a blog (which apparently is the team's official blog), meaning there are no independent, reliable sources. The article also focuses heavily on fictional content (such as the personalities, birthdays, and favorite foods of these fictional characters) with insufficient real world perspective per WP:WAF, other than promotional/advertising content relating to the merchandising of the characters. Nevertheless, I can imagine that the article could be improved to at least the quality of, say, The San Diego Chicken or Phillie Phanatic. But anyone who wants to keep this article should work on rewriting it to focus on real world context with independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the sources provided by cab checks out. The sources currently given on the page is inappropriate to establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been writing most of the contents in this article. I understand the comments above and I am trying to find some relevant and independent sources for this article, which is very likely to be from newspaper (like those suggested by cab). I think the best action towards this article can be a rewrite rather than a pure deletion.Checkiema (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user already expressed his opinion above. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability (what are they known for?) and no reliable sources. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability does not have to be demonstrated in the article. Where you thinking about importance? WP:N calls for the existence of multiple independent reliable sources in order for an topic to pass. This have been shown to exist, thus the article passes our notability standards. Taemyr (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article does not even exist in the Chinese Wikipedia: it is a subset of the South China Athletic Association article. —BradV 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I suppose whether this article exists in Chinese Wikipedia does not add any reference value. There are a lot of articles on Hong Kong football in English Wikipedia which do not exist in Chinese Wikipedia. The non-existence of a separate article on this topic in Chinese Wikipedia may only due to a lack of people to develop an article rather than the notability of it.Checkiema (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources found by cab Hobit (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You'd think that a sports team's mascots would get some media coverage, but this isn't very much at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLD Linux Distribution[edit]

Since the article quotes only primary sources (same for all foreign-language versions), it seems to fail WP:N. The article survived a mass nomination in March, but the discussion did not hint at any secondary sources, nor were any added to the article since then. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:N. Google finds various lists of Linux distributions where it is mentioned, but no independent review. Google news finds nothing. So in the end, notability as per our guidelines is doubtful. --Minimaki (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, appears to be neither original/innovative nor popular.--Chealer (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Stop the insanity! Article references a well known linux distro package with historical value, a strong user base and an impressive search engine presence (DMOZ, MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc etc). While I don't have a definitive reference handy to prove notability beyond any question, I think it's a safe assumption that this software has been reviewed more than once in published linux related material. The top US google search results alone while not authoritative do show that this particular distro is the center of much discussion. And DMOZ has it's own subdirectory for PLD related sites. The original debate seems to present fair and accurate reasoning to keep the article and WP:N states "Notability is not temporary". Regardless, finding references is likely a simple matter of going to the library and doing relatively easy leg work in the computer related periodicals. Using only Google results (and then limiting it even further to the US .com server) to define notability seems very restrictive. To use the same measure, a query for "PLD" on the polish Google ( http://www.google.pl/search?q=PLD ) yields pld-linux.org as the top result with an authority hub listing (notice the full site map). It would be more productive to request references on the discussion page than dragging this article through another AfD. I'm sure they're not having this issue over at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLD_Linux_Distribution where it's also listed as one of the primary linux packages. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The warning tag has been on the article since last May, that's quite a bit of time for requesting sources; none have been found. If you have some, please add them. Pld-linux.org is a primary source, which does not confer notability. Search engine hit counts do neither. For "insanity", please see civility. Thanks. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about WP:GHIT within it's own context and point taken regarding WP:CIVIL. Comment tone revised accordingly, initial exclamation left only for reply integrity. Sadly I do not have the resources (extra time, library access or polish language proficiency) to locate the desired references. Outside of the WP guidelines "authority hub" listing in google do confer that a site is an authority on a notable subject. Not exactly WP notability.. but notable in general. I have seen SEO'ed authority hub listing for less than notable subjects, but I believe this is highly unlikely in this case. There's whole user communities built around PLD which are listed in the DMOZ's PLD category, and the specialty periodicals dedicated to linux seem to thrive on publishing reviews on every linux distro they can get their hands on. We're not talking just hits.. there's a whole category in DMOZ the great grand daddy of search engines that creates the very foundation of google which has been reviewed by live editors. This isn't just the superfluous results of some automate algorithms. http://www.dmoz.org/World/Polska/Komputery/Systemy_operacyjne/Linux/Dystrybucje/PLD/ 99.229.222.154 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that Google's handling of a website is a good measure of notability of an encyclopedic topic. The accepted standard at Wikipedia is coverage in independent sources. Actually, these sources should be used to write the article from, otherwise a neutral point of view is hard to achieve. If you want to search for sources later, the article can be moved to your user space until you have found them. (You would however need to create an account for that.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edutising[edit]

Neologism with few ghits. Article appears to be an advertorial ... I mean, original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be a non-notable neologism. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, reads like an original research essay; and third on Google, after two links to this article, comes "www.edutising.co.za", an advertising firm, slogan "The art of combining education and advertising". JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. non admin closure Cenarium^Talk 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttles in fiction[edit]

This article's sole purpose appears to be an expanded version of those "in popular culture" sections that are essentially trivia sections, which are discouraged. While all of this information may be wonderful in articles about the various individual works, I don't see the purpose of having the big repository list, especially as it's not directly related to the real space shuttle program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems I was unclear about my reason for deletion, I am specifically saying that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as no original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion. In popular culture sections or articles are not discouraged, and are clearly not trivia sections (according to WP:TRIVIA). They show how notable things are referred to in notable works, where the form a key part of the plot, or the setting. The point of an encyclopedia is to collect information about important concepts in appropriate packages, and this approach is a perfectly good one,and rather common in the academic world. the article needs improvement--not everything is necessarily important,and it should have explicit sources. That's a matter for editing. The nom. doesnt like such articles, which is his prerogative, but not a relevant argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons DGG gave much more eloquently than I could. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears just a random collection of films appearances of the Space Shuttle in Film and TV - it is COMPLETELY unreferenced, makes no attempt to distinguish between notable and non-notable appearances or indeed to make any sort of notbility arguments whatsover. It is in addition riddled with OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantive reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need significant improvement (more references, less OR, make it less like a list) but it can still be turned into something useful. Additionally, as was mentioned above, "in popular culture" sections are not specifically discouraged. --Hydraton31 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep i dont find a reason to delete it , if not found to be fit under wiki standard then we must leave it for other editors to fix it or clean it . so i think placing a tag if necessary would fix the solve the issue .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source. Can't get far with an empty tank. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the prose style of this article makes it easier to properly reference. I disagree that fictional portrayals of highly notable concepts are horribly unencyclopedic. --Canley (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question that the article needs better sourcing and bit of a a rewrite but those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dravecky and Canley. Space Shuttles are noteable. Lots42 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Until someone publishes an article or book on treatment of space shuttles in fiction there is no reason to cover it here. Like most pop culture spinoffs, this article reflects a lack of courage to deal with out-of-control trivia lists. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is a very extreme solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's extreme, but not inappropriate for an article that cites no secondary sources at all. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like "In popular culture" sections, but I don't really have a problem with list articles, and this seems to be more like the latter. — Omegatron 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It could use some sourcing, and is a little disjointed. That said...NASA, in fact, maintains a page specifically about space shuttles in science fiction for educational purposes. Isaac Asimov saw them as a significant enough theme in some science fiction to collect an anthology specifically about them (Space Shuttles by Asimov). This is merely touching science fiction; there are numerous articles on JSTOR about cultural references and fictional coverage of space shuttles following the Challenger disaster for example. Sources exist, the topic is important. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Coanda-1910. THE KC (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep: Valid subject. Article needs rewrite and sourcing, not deletion. The article is not trivia per WP:TRIVIA, any highly important fact (like space shuttle) depicted in popular culture and media are valid encyclopedic subject. Nom's rationale for deletion is vague and probably based on misunderstanding of wikipedia policies. I smell disruption on such unclear nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At worst its a valid sub-article to avoid an overly long 'in popular culture' section in the main space shuttle article. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as sole delete opiner neglected to offer a justification, notability conferred by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources referenced after nomination. Non-admin closure Skomorokh 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Ward[edit]

WP:BLP and more general notability concerns. Negative biography stub of a GOP activist and accused embezzler in a recent political scandal. No apparent claim of general interest before this one, yet-to-be-proven event, failing WP:NOT#NEWS. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesnt show the =national impact, but Google News does, and I've added stories to the article from the NYT and the Washington Post. BLP isnt relevant: there are excellent sources, and his career is quite possibly notable beforehand. DGG (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know how big the scandal is. It takes more than a single burst of news to establish notability and until he is convicted, BLP applies. This is a premature-at-best BIO1E. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything in the article is sourced to reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything looks fine, it has sources. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the position of treasurer at the NRCC (or DCCC) would not normally be notable, the fact of a significant embezzlement from one of these committees is not only newsworthy but historic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stanton (actor)[edit]

Article seems to lack notability, as well as context, but not quite to a sufficient level to qualify for either A1 or A7 speedy. It is, nonetheless, practically empty, hence I feel it qualifies for deletion, but feel a greater concencus should be reached. _Talk Islander 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the actor only had a string of one-time small roles I'd say let it go, but the actor has a recurring role on a television series. I think that's good enough to keep it off the block, but it does need to be expanded.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a recurring role in a TV series is notable -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baird street[edit]

Article about a street and its residents, no indication of what city it is located in, no indication of why it is notable outside its immediate surroundings. ~~Delete.~~ (see below) Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 it's clearly a bit of fun by a a kid. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, very non-notable and informal, certainly does not belong here. JamieS93 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per others. Very non-notable article. Probably a joke. Paul20070 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Bizarre - what on earth is it all about? -- BpEps - t@lk 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately I don't think A7 covers streets, but this is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Author requests deletion. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page article is deleted but why is this discussion still continues ?? why dont we close this ??--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Istepanian[edit]

Was tagged for speedy A7; since there is some claim of importance I've taken it to AfD. The immediate problem I see is that it is largely unreferenced and the two refs provided are not independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. has the article been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more than "some claim of importance" claims lead investigator of multiple projects with major funding, and over 150 papers--I have not checked them yet for citations. Is ed. of three books by major publishers. The web site is sufficient sourcing for the routine facts of a career, and the papers can & will be verified in Web of Science. However, I am not familiar with Kingston University, which appears to be a upgrade of Kingston Polytechnic, so I do not necessarily assume a full professor there is important. St Georges, similarly, is a respectable but not absolute top-rate London medical school. .DGG (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine. It's good that the article hasn't been deleted yet and I hope it isn't. Thre is also another thing. How do you write to people on their talk pages as I don't know how to being new user on Wikipedia. Thanks Carolyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolyn, try clicking on the talk link next to someone's signature, which will take you to their talk page, then clicking on the little "+" tab or the "edit this page" tab. I'll leave some other useful links on your talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although Kingston University is not a top-ranked UK university in this field, as far as I'm aware, he is a full professor and director of a research centre, co-editor of three books by top-rated publishers, on several academic editorial boards, guest editor of several journal issues, and lead investigator for multiple major projects, which would seem sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason suggest to keep this page is because of the major contribution of Professor Istepanian in m-health. He is well known among the specialists in this field as first scientist to coin the phrase.

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change Candidate[edit]

More of an essay based on synthesis than an encyclopedia article. Another editor put a proposed deletion tag on this with the reason "Poorly written effort that does not need to be an article in the first place; "change" buzzword can be described within the relevant campaign articles themselves", but I removed that because a proposed deletion had already been declined. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the recent prodder, for the reasons I gave. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously written by someone who thinks that candidates didn't promise "change" until 2008. Go eat some Skittles. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The phrase does have some currency in the 2008 election, but has minor importance and is really just a label that the campaigns are playing keep-away with. This is literally a skeleton of an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make no bones about it when it comes to agreeing that this is a barebones article. Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Reeves[edit]

Was PROD'd, but, has a tinge of notability. Google gives 900 hits for "Gabrielle Reeves" + "editor". I de-prodded the article, but, felt it was best to bring here for more eyes. Neier (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unsourced and lacks any real notable content in the hits I examined. There is nothing that makes her stand out over others in the industry. --Stormbay (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is written now. What award did she win? References? My threshold is very low for inclusion and this "article of a few words does not do it for me. Callelinea (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news searches indicate she had at least one Emmy nomination, but everything is behind a pay wall. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Casanova[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Berserkerus (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in article; no professional reviews found at metacritic.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Jonny-mt. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny N' The Greaserz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonny N' The Greaserz

I assert that this is a non-notable band and should be deleted on per WP:MUSIC Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Non-notable? That sir is an insult to the people of Northern Indiana! Jonny N' the Greaserz has an expansive street team and they have made the band known throughout the region. Places have been asking to book them for months now, but seeing as they recently lost their drummer shows have been impossible. A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene.

I have seen second rate hacks and full out fakes get wikipedia articles but The Greaserz get shafted just because you haven't heard of them? that seems very close minded of you.

If CCCP Fedeli alla linea can get a wikipedia article why no Jonny N' the Greaserz?

Rebutting the Rebuttal This is no slight to the people of Northern Indiana. I've seen an on-going misconception amongst several groups, including those writing about musicians, that Wikipedia is some kind of stepping stone to greater awareness. This kind of thinking is actually contrary to the nature of wikipedia. A wikipedia article shouldn't be thought of as a status symbol or a means to attract more support for a group, company, person or idea. A wikipedia article is meant to educate the populous about subjects deemed worthy by community consensus guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. To quote you "A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene". This comment in itself shows that you are trying to use wikipedia as some kind of launching pad for the group and that type of reasoning is not productive when considering the scope of the wikipedia project. If this band achieves a level of notability that meets with the standards of the community I'm sure that one day it will have a wikipedia article, but for now I'd have to contend that this group is in no way historically significant. Just to be clear, a deletion here does not mean that the band is NEVER going to have a wikipedia article, it just means the time is not right for them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asserts its lack of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and does not have reliable sources. To the person who posted the rebuttal above, you're using the old If "X" has an article, then "Y" should too argument, which really isn't a solid argument for a keep. Bring in some reliable sources (from a major magazine, paper, website, whatever) or prove they pass one of the criterion of WP:MUSIC (which they don't seem to right now). 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skampoe[edit]

Contested speedy deletion for underground hip-hop artist. Can't find reliable sources and notability is questioned. Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't tag this article for speedy, but after searching for anything I could find on this artist I endorsed its speedy deletion based on notability criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident, fails WP:MUSIC, very unencyclopedic in tone and language. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Tone and information will be update so that notability criteria is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmpireRandall (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another non-notable MySpace guy operating under pretentions of being "underground". JuJube (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources all seem to be self-published. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC; non-notable. tim.bounceback 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW I'm begging someone to do a speedy close on this per snow. The article has gotten ridiculous with the main editor inserting nonsense paragraphs. The longer this stays up the stranger I feel this will become. I'm going to post ANI to see if someone can rush this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, textbook CSD A7 indeed. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmageddon (blog)[edit]

Lacks notability, seems to be a short advertisement Salavat (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Tone and information will be update so that notability criteria is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmpireRandall (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook speedy delete case. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed. Debate seems unecessary. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - looks like an A7/website case to me; it's a blog that doesn't seem to have any considerable notability. JamieS93 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and lack of third party sources--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Who is this person and why is their blog worthy of an article? Possibly self promotion as both the author and the subject are called Geoff. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator Geoffeihinger and blogwriter Geoffrey Stephens may or may not be the same person. If they aren't, then delete, because you can't simply copy someone else's blog into a Wikipedia article. If they are the same, Geoff has the potential to write many interesting articles about NASCAR, Indy racing and Formula One. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As NN website. Andante1980 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August Leffler[edit]

Temporary minor character in long gone TV show. I don't think this is notable. 650l2520 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long gone is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third rock will rerun forever. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs refs from particular episodes, and even better secondary source summaries, but show is notable and this would be undue info for the main article. Note that notability is not temporary; once something is notable it is notable forever. Joshdboz (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge into a character list once one is created. IMDb said this character appeared in 25 episodes, which is pretty much for a "minor" character. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of episodes that can be cited in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy DELETE (non admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon vs Digimon[edit]

Main: WP:CRYSTAL. Problems with WP:RS. Essay piece. Taroaldo (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a made up article. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this to be a clear hoax.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it wasn't clear it was a hoax before, this vandalism pretty much confirms it. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete made-up and a waste of time. Article creator (also named Pokemon vs Digimon) is likely a single purpose vandalism account who removed the content from this afd discussion. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 08:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up essay. EJF (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. tim.bounceback 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or an essay. Clearly something made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, WP:CRYSTAL, no sources, probably a hoax. Think outside the box 16:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense and tagged as such. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP... take your pick... --Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleted by me. Now. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Haemo (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalistic Gothica[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, dubious authenticity, zero Ghits WWGB (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like something made up by a 13 year old who watched too many gore films. I mean seriously, a cannibalistic demon vampire cult? It's either an outright hoax or someone forgot to mention the name of the series they were writing a fictional article about. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally saw this article as "canibalists". First I tagged it as unsourced but after doing some research I found nothing for the phrase or for "Cannibalistic Gothica" so I redirected the page to cannibal. Although some of the information in article appears to coincide with the information in the cannibal entry I can't verify anything that makes this a significantly different term from cannibal nor can I find any evidence that the phrase Cannibalistic Gothica has ever been used.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best a misunderstanding of some fiction, yet I feel the source is closer to record album notes than a book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, no useful Google hits for the term, no apparent real-world notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator User:Michael Slater quotes "My source is from eye witnessess." Man... if I could use that as a WP:RS I'd have made alot of articles when I was smoking that stuff years ago!--Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Michael Slater and and IP:99.234.235.244 are removing the AfD tags. They have been reverted and warned.--Pmedema (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The kindest thing I can say about this is unsourced. Edward321 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Created by indef banned user. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayelle (lesbian)[edit]

Proposed new term for lesbian. Non-notable neologism. Essentailly the article is spam for a clothes shop. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. The linked sources are just a bunch of blogs and the stuff from said clothes shop, nothing reliable to prove the term is in established use. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. After looking at the new version of the article, I'm afraid my concerns still haven't been addressed. The article is better formatted, to be sure, but it still lacks the necessary proof of notability. --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standard failure of WP:NEO. It isn't a "clothes shop", though, it's just a cafepress attached to a pretty basic one-issue website. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NEO. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO, sourcing is blogs and the for-profit organization pushing this trademarked term for a line of merchandise, some sources note this article as evidence of notability setting up a vicious circle. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog that mentions wikipedia, mentions the disambiguation page Gayelle (disambiguation) and was written before this articleNewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO, feels very spammy for the reasons Dravecky brings up. Also one of its references is UrbanDictionary. Which is a big no-no. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is not used as a source for this article it is simple in the external links.NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-notable term, i hear it on energy 92.7 all the time and it has received press coverage on Logo and CBS news. Can somebody look into it before they jump to conclusions?NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only the source is listed, i need actual link to the CBS News and Logo sources. the only Google News articles I can find are to an unrelated cable channel in Trinidad and Tobago Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note above vote is from primary editor of article. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually the article is about a movement (Gayelle® is a movement [...]) not the word. The movement looks non-notable, but the discussion should about about that, I think. - Nabla (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lesbian and add a small, sourced, mention in it. - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the name is presented as a registered trademark is proof enough to me that it is not a movement, but is in fact a marketing term intended to move product. DarkAudit (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a marketing term and it is not trade marked it is reserved, hipshe is trade marked and it is not presented that way. I simply thought that when a term is reserved or trademarked we are obligated to put in the (r) (tm) (C) alongside the name. I removed them. Move Product? what product? Its a term and social movement. I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton is trying to sell product for selling bumper stickers and t-shirts.NewAtThis (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP Notable term Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Blatant advertising, and thinly veiled questions on the Reference Desk will not change this from being the case. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, advertising for what? And second of all I have nothing to due with the gayelle or sapphic chic people. I'm not trying to advertise anything. I do think in the quest for all human knowledge we should mention things such as this. And when an editor makes a good faith claim that there are good reliable sources such as CBS to back it up maybe a good faith search and trying to back him up would be in order instead of trying to destroy a new article without giving it a chance. As for your accusations of my thinly veiled questions, veiled as what? What are you insinuating?NewAtThis (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this once and i'll say it again. You'll need to produce the CBS source for it to be used in the article. Simply mentioning it does not help. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As either a newly coined word or a reserved or trade mark, it is not appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If it turns out to be, in the future, a movement of substance, the encyclopedia will be here then to include it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Revision is not as spammy, but the term is still one created and pushed by public relations people, not by the community at large. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, however that doesn't have anything to do with notability. Perhaps this should be elaborated in the article. Do you have any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not just notability. It's that the term is a neologism. The Wikipedia community, especially the denizens of AfD, do not care for neologisms. The movement is too new to give the term time to enter the general vernacular. Three months isn't enough. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After being asked to reconsider the revised version I find it improved but still failing notability. Sources 1 and 2 are the same article in a slightly different wrapper, the bulk of the remaining sources are blogs or the self-interested Sapphic Chic website, and source 11 is the "Neology" blog which only goes to proving that WP:NEO applies here. None of this goes to proving notability, only that a few bloggers will respond to a press release for an attention grabbing "funny" story. If pressed again I will change my vote... to Strong Delete. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everyone, this seems to be another P.C. spin job. Also note that the primary editor, User:NewAtThis, has copied the page to his/her userpage. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to ask if anyone else thought it bizarre that an alleged reliable source added to help disprove the position that the subject is a neologism was in fact a blog titled Neology. I see the thought has already occurred. There is nothing to warrant a change of my position. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same here. New sources are more reliable, but indicate only that the term is a protologism attempting to inject itself into the culture, not that the term has currency or any importance as of yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with everyone above, None of the sources featured are reliable sources and User:NewAtThis has yet to produce the actual article from CBS News about the term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NewAtThis has also canvassed my Talk page to change my vote based on added "new" sources. I am not seeing anything much more than blogs and similar "every passing breeze" mentions. There is nothing new that would change my "delete" vote above. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NewAtThis's User page is ~~an exact~~ a substantive copy of this article. Would it be appropriate to tie the deletion of the content of the user page to the deletion of the article, should that be the concensus? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a discussion best saved for later, but note Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is pretty clear. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT YOU WITCHHUNTERS!~~please don't let your personal opinions influence this discussion, keep it to policy, and don't bring my user page up. thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, and also, probably, WP:V. Undeath (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh, yes, delete. It's a dreadful neologism. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'What's wrong with aussienews and the daily telegraph, they are legitimate sources, I think the advocate has brought it up too.70.1.209.112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have? Then prove it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Tango Magazine, Naughty Trends Magazine, Anodis, Aussie News and The Daily Telegraph as sources?NewAtThis (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about about.com NewAtThis (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously, please review WP:RS, WP:NEO etc. I cannot understand how anyone could suggest that those citations meet these criteria. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention and Redirect - In reading the below suggestions, I think that that is fair. I agree with User:Friday that it may deserve a mention in lesbian but does not warrent a separate article.--Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Random question, though...why was this relisted merely two days after it started? There's plenty of debate and consensus to delete looks pretty clear... --Smashville^BONK! 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, or radom answer... NewAtThis did it to permit more debate and for people to take a look at new sources provided and for more to be found at lexus nexus see diff. I delisted it as there is no need to duplication. If an admin looking at this believes more debate is needed s/he will relist, typically he will take the new info into account (and there's always Deletin Review if he does not) - Nabla (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge about one cited sentence to Lesbian, and redirect. It's a neologism that a few are writing about, but there's no need for a separate article. Aleta ^Sing 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources in article talk about the term and are non-trivial. Not sure it has really gotten beyond the neologism stage yet though. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be a good reason for this term to get a sentence or two at lesbian. I just don't see that there's enough for a separate article here. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted. I think the subject meets the formal notability guidelines - it is a commercial organization that has filed a trademark for a new lifestyle brand it is creating and sells clothing under that trademark[www.cafepress.com/sapphicchic]. The trademark was filed a couple years ago by an individual living in the Bay Area, California. As part of that effort it has gained some publicity worldwide (with substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) for promoting its brand name as a new term to describe its demographic. Or vice versa - it's a movement that trademarked its name and sells tee shirts. In any event the article, if it survives, should be modified and possibly renamed to be about the organization, not the neologism it's trying to create. However, this article was created by a sockpuppet of a prolific disruptive user, QRC2006 / Boomgaylove, who has made a mess of Bay Area, California articles about queer issues and geography. That clouds the whole issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as content posted by blocked user in evasion of block. User:NewAtThis is not in fact new at this, but is a sockpuppot of a repeat offender, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NewAtThis. DarkAudit (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, creator is an indef-banned sockpuppeteer. Jfire (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing issues are not a deletion reason, but rather an opportunity to fix the problem.. - Philippe 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by surface area[edit]

Fails two of Wikipedia's core policies, Verifiability and Original Research. This list lacks a single cohesive source, but rather has been built up by individual editors adding their own cities. Some are completely unsourced, some cite Wikipedia articles as sources (I understand that's a no-no) and the rest cite a mishmash of municipal websites and national statistical agencies. How do we know that these are the world's largest cities, in order? We don't, not at all. Unless an external source can be found that actually ranks the world's biggest cities, by area, this is sadly both unverifiable and original research. A shame because it's an interesting topic. Aucitypops (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to sourcing issues. This is "notable", in that Mount Isa long held the Guinness record for this, but I have no idea now. The basic problem is twofold. First, how are they measuring area, and second, what is a "city"? When you have things like Hulunbuir, which even our article says isn't a "real" city (whatever that is), but indicative of some kind of metro government. Population and urbanization comparisons made by NGOs tend to recognize things like "built-up areas" for this reason. Unless we have a UN or other highly reputable NGO or almanac-type source, this is going to be a problem article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons above, "height of city" could mean the average height of a city or the height of the highest point in city, which will cause confusion. Lily1104 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that altitude is one of the thinks mentioned on the table. I agree with everyone, however, that there are problems with the sources for the individual facts. In addition, I think that the "single cohesive source" referred to by the nominator probably would exist somewhere, and would be more reliable than this constructed table. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the Guinness Book of Records has something about this, we should see what they say. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this is a notable list, and is little different than city lists by pop or lat/long. Bad sourcing is no reason to delete an article, just do a rewrite. Joshdboz (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surface area is defined by: "political jurisdictions which (in their own language) identify themselves as cities". As this will be different for each country, comparing/listing them seems useless to me. Joost 99 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't all borders just political delineations? How would the list be any different than List of countries and outlying territories by total area? Perhaps the lead should be rewritten, but that doesn't change the topic itself. Joshdboz (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Borders for countries are (for the best part) internationally agreed on. The definition for cities is not. Please take a closer look at the list. There are 72 cities on the list of which 19 (!!!) are Finnish and only 2 are Russian (if the list is correct). This just tells me Finns have a totally different way of laying down their city-borders than Russia. Nothing more. Joost 99 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the nominator thinks its a good topic for an article, so sourcing issues can be address by editing.DGG (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly viable and of value, not to mention easily verifiable as these are cities we're talking about; most have their own webpages, and cities are inherently notable meaning there's plenty of sourcing out there. 23skidoo (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: people are suggesting the article remain with a new source. Please realise that as the list stands the whole thing will need to be removed, and as the article is pretty much just a list it will have no content until a new source is found. It is specifically the ranking that is unverifiable and original research, something that won't be fixed by just going to every city in the world's website as 23skidoo etc. have suggested. A single source is essential. - Aucitypops (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The list is WP:SYNTH in a nutshell. There may be a source that says that Sitka, Alaska, is 4,812 square miles in area. But find me the source that says it's the "14th largest city in the world", by area. Although I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has published a ranking of cities by how many square kilometers each one is, Guinness certainly has not, other than to recognize a few contenders, based on varying definitions. Is this much different than one of us constructing our own ranking of "coldest cities" from different average temperature reports? Good topic, bad executon. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, in the interests of clarification -- would you still voice a "delete" opinion if the table was missing the first column, the "rank" column? I agree, we don't know Sitka Alaska is the 14th largest city in the World. But, with reliable sources, we can verify that Sitka is smaller than Heyuan, Guangdong and larger than Huizhou, Guangdong. Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. Could be rewritten as several editors have suggested. Vints (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As others have said this article should be carefully sourced. As others have said, sourcing concerns should not be used as an argument for deletion. I think this list would be useful even if it were cut back to half a dozen well-sourced entries, which also listed those cities population. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd change my opinion if the list were made of "cities of greater than 1,000 km²" or greater than 500 mi², or whatever standard is used. As Geo points out, removal of the ranking would remove most of the synthesis problems. The other improvement I'd suggest is to make the sources visible as endnotes, which is simply a matter of form. If there are sources that say that Altamira is 68,758 mi², and that Chonqing is 31,815 mi², that's encyclopedic information and a list of such large area cities would meet Wikipedia standards. Ultimately, I'm hoping that someone can find a published ranking, but until then, Geo's suggestion is a good solution. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Black Kite 07:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills Middle School[edit]

Completely unsourced, unverified two sentence stub without any external links. Does not assert notability. May not even exist.NewAtThis (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Way too short. Also not notable.--RyRy5 talk 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per aboveNewAtThis (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The school does exist as a simple search would show. There are currently problems with WP:SCHOOL. Insofar as notability, there is neither a clear indication or assertion. If encyclopedic content can be satisfied, it should be merged into its relevant school district or municipality per these criteria in 'Failure to establish notability'. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Length of an article is not a reason for deletion, a call for improvement is not the purpose of an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think most of the listings in the category should be deleted. It is not notable that a school exists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current standard on Wikipedia is that middle schools and elementary schools are not inherently notable, meaning that you have to demonstrate that there is coverage about the school from secondary sources. This doesn't appear to be a class project on learning Wikipedia, and the two sentences in and of themselves don't show anything significant. Although, as Dravecky says, length of an article may not be a reason for deletion, subjects that aren't inherently notable can't get by with just a stub. Merge/Redirect to new article created by Terriers Fan about the school district. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't appear to have an article on the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, to which this school belongs. If anyone wants to create an "Education" section in Watsonville, California, schools like this one and Watsonville High School can be listed there; but I see no reason for substubs like this to hang around. Deor (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to redirect now that article on the district has been created and everything significant in this article merged there.Deor (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Pajaro Valley Unified School District per established prcedent. I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where it can be placed in context of other schools until sufficient sourced content allows it to be broken out to its own article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Wikipedia:Notability (schools) to Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Notability isn't claimed in the article, and I'm not finding notabilty in a gsearch for this (or the several other) Rolling Hills Middle School, so Wikipedia:SCHOOL#Failure_to_establish_notability says to merge.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete At this point I must suggest deletion. I am concerned about WP:RS and also the veracity of the article itself. I appreciate that the school district's page has been created, but on Rolling Hills Middle School's web page it notes that the principal is Rick Ito. In Rolling Hills Middle School's page it lists two other individuals as senior administrators. These names do not appear anywhere as senior administrators of any kind (that I could see) on the school's official page. This leads to a concern that, though the school is real, the page was created as a hoax. (Note also that the RHMS page creator has had no other contributions to Wikipedia.) I remain open to additional information. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect TerriersFan, you're right of course. I am pouring myself a second cup of morning coffee now, as I ovbiously haven't had enough yet. Thanks. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this has been fixed on the merged page. Whatever the intention of the page's creator a redirect is valid and deletion would serve no purpose. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as schools are inherently notable (I can't see how a middle school would be any different in that regard than a high school). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to close and redirectNewAtThis (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After one day, and with a wide variety of opinions? Let this play out. - Dravecky (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include in the district article. Middle schools are not inherently notable. They are different from established high schools, because high schools almost always have notable alumni, athletic or academic victories of some sort, news articles talking about the construction or expansion--all documentable. Middle schools there are many fewer such competitions, its usually not to identify notable alumni, and not even local papers pay them much attention. If of course something can be actually found for one then it is notable, but experience here shows that is rarely the case. This one is a good example: directory information only.DGG (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that nominator User:NewAtThis is an indef-banned sockpuppet who has made a large number of disruptive AfD nominations. Jfire (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case we should speedy close. We cannot allow noms made by a disruptive sockpuppet result in delete; it would send a bad message to those who engage in such activities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, dry up, Pumpkin King. See my comment at [28]. Deor (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination was intended to be disruptive, we should not humor the sock account by proceeding, especially in a no consensus case like this one anyway. Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Civility. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge. Maybe just redirect? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do redirect, then there's no reason to delete as well, as we might as well keep everyone's public contribution history intact. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, a redirect preserves the article's history at the redirect page. Deor (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's a redirect without deletion. Sometimes the article is deleted first and then redirected without preserving the edit history. In thie case, though, if it is redirected, I don't believe the article should be deleted first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one line article into its district article. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business innovation consulting group[edit]

NN - WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Innovation Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be added to the nomination - also on the same subject matter by the same editor. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as per nom. Significance not asserted; promotional; possible WP:COI --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Per above.--RyRy5 talk 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, reads like an advert. - Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull. . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete Notability has been asserted per Wiki guidelines: references, notes and links. BICG's work on workplace strategies is on a par with Fraunhofer Society, which has wiki entry. Acorsin(talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{reflist}} is mainly for in-line citations. Please reformat your references list to reflect proper usage. It is difficult to verify your sources otherwise and may count against the policy of WP:RS. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing here to show independent notability. Nothing to show that it's a "nationally recognised" team; winning some local competitions is not enough. Black Kite 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Chester East Academic Team[edit]

Semi-procedural nomination. This page was previously tagged for speedy deletion for not asserting notability. Problem is, the page DOES assert notability by claiming that the team is nationally recognized, and one of the editors, User:Headtechie2006, says they have a number of national titles (which are not currently specified in the article). In light of this, the page should be listed for a full deletion debate.

Personally, I'm leaning towards delete right now, but will change to keep if we can get proof of the club's national recognition. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot locate WP:RS info to verify notability. Am open to change should reliable sources emerge. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school's article states "2008 Academic Team - National Quarter-finalists" and "2004 Academic Team - National Champions", but with no RS's to establish notability. Grsz 11 04:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Grez and Taroaldo. Non-notable.--RyRy5 talk 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Need I remind you that this is the AfD/ West Chester East Academic Team. Leave any other articles out of your arguement.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so here is a notable, 3rd party "RS" http://www.cciu.org/NewsAndEvents/acachamps06 [29] this shows that the team has won championships.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me until the end of the day Monday, I can give a full report of our National record. For space reasons, the website www.qunlimited.com does not keep a full record of the past winners of nationals Lifelongpyro (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as User:Headtechie2006 has said, the judges are more than an "arms reach" away for us. In fact, Chip Beale is a former jeopardy champion and so is Brad Rutter^[1]. In fact, Brad Rutter defeated Ken Jennings to win $2 million. In addition all of the moderators have quiz bowl experience of some kind. This makes a team that won at nationals more than appropriate to post.

References
- [1] http://www.qunlimited.com/Pros.htm

Lifelongpyro (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The team cannot claim notability based on the notability of the judges. The sources provided are not truly independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not claiming credibility based on the judges, we are just trying to prove that the competition is credible and therefore the fact that our team won at the competition is notable. Lifelongpyro (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, notability is not achieved through association. You need sources, not name-dropping. DarkAudit (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to West Chester East High School. Claims are team is nationally recognized (which would give weight to merge), but text is not convincing. Not enough in article to show it stands on its own.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Lifelongpyro. This article has shown than they are nationally recognized, an d have won many national titles. Those titles have been awarded by an 3rd party who is at more than an "arms reach" who is also highly qualified to judge groups such as this.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this quiz bowl team is on of 3 school's teams that are in a district that all are very proud of their teams. the district is one of about 12000 students^[2].along with the 12000 student in the school district, each student on the team has a family who also cares very much about this and all of the other quiz bowl teams. if you do some crazy math, there are thousands of people who I'm sure care very much about this article. that to me is notable, or worth of note. people take note of the schools academic team when they go to districts, states, and national finals. Also all of the alumni and parents of the alumni, and the boosters also take note of when anything major happens to the team. not to mention that quiz bowl tournaments are sometimes broadcast on television.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, insufficiently notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into West Chester East High School, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- references

^ Pictures and descriptions of our unsurpassed staff of moderators and judges
^ About WCASD

Delete, the sourced content can go to the school's article, but people are unlikely to type two extra words. Wikipedia's search engine should point them to the right place. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafel (band)[edit]

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. No third party sources, other than the two Hebrew reviews. The fact that the reviews are in Hebrew make it tough, but I cannot read Hebrew nor can my computer translate it. Either way, the reviews, by the titles of them, and the length of them, seem as though they are not notable enough to keep this article. Lack of english sources to verify notability. Unsourced information has already been deleted, but the article is still full of unsourced information. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of English sources is immaterial to the group's notability, and the inability of the nominator to read Hebrew does not necessarily make them unreliable. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the fault of the nominator that they cannot read Hebrew. Wikipedia guidelines may not require English-language sources, but they do say that translations should be made available so that editors can make a reasonable attempt at vetting the sources. DarkAudit (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone can find the translation, go ahead. Even with the translations, I still do not think it will pass notability. A page, that I created, was deleted even though I had four reviews written in German. Foreign reviews are iffy, because if the reviewer was well known, then they would have an english translation for more coverage/readers. Undeath (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What page was that? Can I see a copy of the deleted article? Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was the page for Yersinia (band). I don't have a copy of the deleted text, but you can ask the admin who deleted it to get you the text. The entire review was on the talk page. Undeath (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I tagged this for notability issues and lack of sources a while back in the hope that it would be improved but there is still no clear pass of WP:BAND and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. There's plenty around in the usual dubious/undiscriminating metal fansites, but nothing substantial looking.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems like there are arguments both for keep and delete, and I'm voting here out of personal knowledge - having heard of this band myself and not being very interested in black metal, I think that it does pass WP:N. WP:V is another issue, although this is something that can improve, therefore it's not a good enough reason to delete IMO. I may change my vote if new evidence is brought up.

Hey I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like a reason to put forward a weak keep, is there any reason why you think it meets WP:MUISC as that is the point of contention. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but an article is not obligated to meet any of WP:N's sub-pages in order to be on Wikipedia. Instead, WP:N (and WP:MUSIC) is a guideline of what probably should and should not be on Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:NOT are inclusion policies, both of which this article passes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline which must be followed. It does not state that a band is notable if an editor has heard of them. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just a guideline and should be followed. See both definition of the word "guideline" and WP:IAR. That said, I agree the original argument is weak at best. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personal knowledge does not count in AfD. Just becuase you've heard of a band, does not mean that everyone else has. That doesn't meet WP:N. Undeath (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to meet the requirements for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Tvangeste connection seems to meet WP:MUSIC #6, the SPG label seems to have been around since at least 1994 with a fair variety of artists, and the Sound Age label seems to have a non-trivial stable of artists. Respectable internet presence for a mostly Russian/Polish/Hebrew topic. I've added English language reviews, etc. to the article. Shawisland (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CD universe and spirit of metal sites are non notable when describing a band on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Comment The new sources are non notable. Look at the reviews. The reviews were done by members of the sites. They are not official band reviewers.(is that a word?) Undeath (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will probably nominate Tvangeste for deletion too. That band has nothing notable about it, and has not been improved since 2006. Basically, the comparison of notability of the band in this AfD to Tvangeste just furthers the fact that the band is non notable. Undeath (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This band is among the better known bands in the Israeli metal scene. Of course, my personal knowledge shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia, but the current sources are enough to prove notability per WP:BAND. I can read Hebrew, and i testify that the reviews on Metalstrom and Metalist.co.il were written by the websites' staff members, not submitted by amateur contributors, so that counts as a professional review per WP:BAND. Also, at least one album that they released was notable enough for the AllMusic radar. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly qualifies under criteria 1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. A casual google search indicates that Arafel has been the subject on metal-observer.com, maelstrom.nu, metalmessage.de and metal-invader.com. These are not user submitted sites like metalstorm or metal-archives (both of which also mentions Arafel, of course). For those wondering, that's a website from Canada, USA, Germany and Greece respectively that have either reviewed or interviewed an Israeli band that's made up of Russian expatriates. Most importantly, the band is apparently notable enough to merit an entry on Rockdetector. The site's been down for the past few days but you can always look up google's cache. As an aside, I strongly feel that the nominator should have brought this up at WikiProject Metal to raise attentin among those of us who might be more experienced with the subject matter. --Bardin (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've stubbed the article, which can't make up its mind whether it's about the company or the drink. However, some of the Google News hits are just about sufficient to not delete this. Black Kite 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fast[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. The subject has no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per nom. Advertising. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in need of extensive overhaul plus advert and cruft removal but subject has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have personally seen the company profiled on both Current and CNN in the last year but the generic name renders a simple Google News search unwieldy. - Dravecky (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. Needs spam removal, but rough Google Search/News Search establishes enough non-trivial secondary source coverage for notability. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all it would take is about 6% of these 50 Google news hits to not be press releases to establish notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Nick Dowling. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the blade[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:V, and I doubt seriously that either can be fixed. Izno (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a gaming guild unlikely to be notable per WP:ORG. The article contains multiple implausible claims, and the only source named is a general page from a message board (a non-reliable source anyway) which doesn't even indicate any specific mention of this guild. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole page makes unverifiable claims out the yin-yang, none of them sourced -- because no sources have apparently written about these guys. Fails WP:ORG by a longshot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.RyRy5 talk 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is all a load of horse manure, and I'll be bold and declare them all lies and a hoax. Not even Nihilum has a Wikipedia page. They're a damn sight better than these... whatevers. DarkAudit (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 7-3 keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Centre[edit]

Non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. No citations or outside links to verify any information provided. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mall, no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom, Non-Notable, and not much about the mall itself. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)
Keep. Size is 223,327 sq ft., and it also serves as a transit hub. See http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=931668 ("Transit officials also plan to speed up bus times along Princess Street between the Cataraqui Town Centre and the Kingston Centre during rush hour.") which seems to refer to it more as a transit hub than shopping centre.--Eastmain (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The local daily newspaper, the Kingston Whig-Standard, has covered the Kingston Centre redevelopment story extensively, but hides its archives behind a pay-wall. But to see the headlines, go to http://www.thewhig.com/Archive.aspx and enter "Kingston Centre" in the search box to see headlines like these:
- Mall employees in the dark: Kingston Centre retail workers are wor...
- Kingston Centre has been seniors' gathering place
- Out with the old, in with the new: Wrecking ball hangs over Kingst...
- Kingston Centre home of new bus terminal: Set to open Aug. 2
- Kingston Centre controversy: As owner of mall, Loblaws has right t...

--Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This shopping centre site is under development, just like the article. It's geographic location, as a hub within the city, is what gives it importance beyond its current size. Let's go shopping! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have received only local coverage if at all, no notability asserted. Just because it's a community hub doesn't mean it's notable -- malls are meant to be community hubs, that's part of the reason why they're built. My local mall was most certainly intended as a community hub, even though a.) it's down to about 15 stores, and b.) it's smaller than most Wal-Mart stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per addition of sources; barely asserts notability but it works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a fairly large city, and many people seem to go there every, some for travel, just like Gloucester Road, which is notable. Basketball 110 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The main argument here seems to be that no reliable sources exist to verify the info in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Whig Standard info sufficient.

Also, comment: the length of an article is not necessarily relevant to any notability claim. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in significant need of expansion but should cover more than 50 years of history for the mall on that site. Notability established but a rewrite is strongly called for. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whig articles plus already included sources are enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, and I would assume that this new transit center will be included in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilirida[edit]

This article is apparently about an "unofficial region" in the Republic of Macedonia. Yet there are no (real or imagined) borders for this region. After having consulted other users from Macedonia, I can conclude this article deals with a minor concept, which was propagated only by a few irredentists, and has/had not been discussed by any politicians in Macedonia, or any media. Also, most of it is a content fork of Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Back to the term, it isn't really a neologism as such, but this article is an attempt at popularising it, or a hoax trying to give undue weight to this concept. Balkan Fever 03:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP and DELIST clearly notable, well sourced, national regionNewAtThis (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: NewAtThis has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not particularly notable in the Republic of Macedonia, and not a region. It doesn't have any kind of borders. Balkan Fever 05:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Balkan Fever 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uses ethnic maps as any real indication of this so-called "region". Köbra ⁸⁵ 09:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an imaginated political unit.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is separatism, iredentism and nationalism. - Рашо ^(Yes?) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll just point out the fact that all the keep-s come from contributors from the Republic of Macedonia in some sort of a co-ordination effort to remove the article. I'm not sure if it's notable or un-fictional enough - it just strikes me as a fact. --Laveol ^T 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then just give your opinion should Ilirida as article be deleted or not. Then we will have one Bulgarian view on the topic. (Toci (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Imaginary things are not welcomed on Wikipedia I think. If it like that Wikipedia loses the reputation and the quality, not quantity.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a term used in Albanian Nationalism, article could use clean-up, but it's an actual term than exists beyond this article. Gets 66,300 hits on google, about the same amount as Greater Serbia and a ton more than Greater Slovenia's 357. It's notable if those are. Zazaban (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A place that exists in the mind only. I'm from Scotland, and there are some people, such as The Scottish Socialist Party who'd like to see a Socialist Republic of Scotland - no, we don't have such an article, because there's no such place...The concept can be covered in Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Also, beware of relying too much on Google (see WP:GOOGLE) - I get 754000 hits for "Brigadoon" - doesn't make it a place, and 1,030,000 for "The world is flat" - nevertheless, she's round. Camillus (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is such a thing as the flat earth society. Also, what those people want is actual Scotland. Zazaban (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an article on United Ireland, which, although it is discussed, does not exist. Should that article be deleted? Zazaban (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse Ilirida with Greater Albania. Balkan Fever 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation if it happens. - Philippe 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Dome[edit]

Unsubstantiated future project. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. May even be a hoax. See dreams – A Future Dome we have never heard from Nv8200p talk 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. The source appears to be a Dutch chat site here. If a reliable source can be produced then I should be happy to change my !vote but without such a source we should delete. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting, but that's not an acceptable AfD argument. Problems with WP:RS; WP:CRYSTAL. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fascinating look through WP:CRYSTAL ball but this article is all "future" and "unrealized" and "estimated" without reliable sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a bit of Googling, I see we have numerous skyscraper enthusiast sites agreeing on the basic info about the project, a bunch of concept drawings/renderings... and a complete lack of real confirmation that the project exists.
While I wouldn't put too much weight on the linked blog saying that Shanghai locals haven't heard about the project (the Chinese Shenzou program, for instance, was publicized everywhere BUT mainland China. They only got the information after the mission was a confirmed success.), we can't have an article that pulls its data out of thin air. Has anyone attempted translating the forum posts that the images were taken from to see if those have useful information? [30] --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google searches have led me to trustable web sites that prove such thing could exist in the near future. Until the building is completed. we can put a "future/upcoming" template on the article. Lily1104 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until its built it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blank article. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.spoof's Quotes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mr.spoof's Quotes

Doesn't make any sense and is just a random collection of quotes. I would've nominated for speedy deletion but it didn't meet the criteria of anything. Mm 40 _{Your Hancock Please} 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged. -WarthogDemon 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's actually blank at the moment; I had previously deleted it under the criterion of "Vandalism'. Since there's nothing there now, I'll go ahead and close this AfD. ... discospinster _talk 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doni tamblyn[edit]

Asserts notability but no 3p sources per WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Currently problems with WP:RS and overly promotional, but seems as though it should be notable.

Comment. Folks, I am not denying notability, but as it stands the article (which by the way does not even purport to be a stub) has no third party RS, none. Links to the subject's books on Amazon don't count. Therefore it fails WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserts notability and seems to meet it. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing but those aren't issues for an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable author of quality work. Article should be moved to correct title. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable comedian and author. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Look at that name! She has, on her birth certificate, "Doni tamblyn?" She has a minuscule last name? Look at the "keep" votes, above: "notable!" Well, I see little to no evidence of this. The author is an online essayist, it seems, which is going to result in (guess what?) lots of web hits and yet no actual testimony to authorship equivalent to a book that sells. Forget all that, though: look at that name! I do wish folks would think before they "vote." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the article, the lower-case start to the last name is a typo in article creation, easily fixed if/when it survives the AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wow...you're upset over this article Utgard... Articles here[31], one book here [32], some review of the book here [33], And another review for another book [34]. Everything I see satisfies WP:N and WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must also say: "Wow" childish much Utgard...? First, Tamblyn, even with a lowercase letter, is a respected surname in America--Where are you from? (Though it should be uppercase.) Second, Doni's FIRST published work, The Big Big Book of Humorous Training Games is in the BEST SELLERS list of McGraw Hill's Big Book series! Great fact finding work on your part, Utgard! Third, her second work: Laugh and Learn has received worldwide acclaim, and has been translated into more than 10 languages. And finally, why don't you give folks some time to add to the page and prove that Tamblyn is a modern day Marvel in many ways... 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.79.18 (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tatham[edit]

Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a news source, coverage was only temporary. ⇔ EntChickie 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the spirit and intent of the consensus not to cover news events is that not every one-off news item or report is deemed worthy of coverage. In this case, the story was widely reported internationally, and was covered repeatedly over nine months. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, this seems to be on the "keep" side of transient coverage. JJL (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The events are definitely notable. (Perhaps a title modification would help.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable and well-covered but this article needs immediate attention for wikification and encyclopedic tone. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Canley (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominator, this is not In the News. Is there anything about the biography that makes this person more than a news event? Not that I can see. He appears to be an official doing his job, and merely doing one's job is never sufficient for encyclopedic coverage. If the person is still being discussed in a year's time, there will be need of an article, but the fact that many people are saying the name today does not mean that the individual biography is notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are all officials doing their job, you can't say they're "never notable". As I said above, this has been reported on since April 2007, so for nearly 11 months. If we're going to set arbitrary timeframes that make people notable - and you've said a year - he's nearly there. Or did you mean another year from now? And then, where do we stop? Delete everything that's not being discussed any more? --Canley (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that notability is not temporary. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a borderline case in my opinion. Though it was covered in many media over several months, it still seems to be WP:BIO1E over one event, thus I'm not sure a balanced WP:NPOV article can be written and that it fails WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Plague[edit]

Non-notable. This person has been involved in everything from a band to vegan cooking, but doesn't seem to qualify under WP:N for any of them. There are several citations on the page, non of which meet WP:RS. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--RyRy5 talk 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs extensive editing for cruft and advert removal but seems to be a notable musician with a notable career. Reliable sourcing needs to be added to support this. - Dravecky (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, I've done extensive Google searching and not found any reliable sources to back up the claims of notable musicianship. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At this point, no way to make it past the bar -- as a regional/local journalist. In his previous life, as a musician, a number of small independent acts. They may or may not have had some influence, but they did not get significant sales. The article reads like a vanity or homage page and fails NPOV. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how any link fails WP:RS, or would qualify as "cruft". Anyways, he been involved several bands which have releases on notable indie labels, and is/was an important in the genesis of queercore. Just check out how many pages already link to this article—and I didn't create any of them (though I did fix redlinks that had pointed to Mukilteo Fairies, etc.) Furthermore, Plague and his bands meet the following WP:MUSIC criteria

#1 "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."(e.g.[35][36][37]),
#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels,"
#6 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable,"

Finally, fully aware of WP:GOOGLE, I submit that a google search brings up close to 6,000 hits for Plague/Ploeg and his projects. A google books search finds 3 books, a quote from of which I've just added to the article. Certainly this article could be improved, but certainly Plague is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Yilloslime (t) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 - none of those sources are a) reliable or b) about Plague
5 and #6 - Those may be true of Mukilteo Fairies, but they do not confer notability to Plague. The book quote is about MF, and the book doesn't even mention Plague/Ploeg. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book mentions "the lead singer" of MK. All the sources are reliable. I contend that Plague, MK, and BTPNLSL are intimately related and best handled in one article rather than 3 separate articles. Therefore, if MK is notable, and MK is covered in the JP article, then that's an argument for inclusion of the JP article. But if you want to split out MK and BTPNLSL articles and delete JP, that might be a way forward, but I think WP is best served by having them all covered in the same article.Yilloslime (t) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fully aware of all the caveats in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I submit that—as troubled as it is—this article is in much better shape, both in terms of referencing and evidence of notability, than many (most even?) of the pages for other K records artist listed here. If the bar for inclusion is set so high as to exclude this article, then there are thousands more music articles that are going to need to go too. Yilloslime (t) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know about 6,000 G-hits ... I get a measly 177 unique hits from a directed search of "Joshua Plague" minus Marvel Comics (to clear out an eponymous comic book character). There's not a reliable source in the lot, and the traditional red flag of non-notability arises: the lead two hits are the fellow's website and the Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes his first name is listed as Josh and other time as Joshua; sometimes his last as Plague and elswhere as Ploeg, and the entry also covers his band Mukilteo Faires, hence the "advanced" google search including all these terms. Excluding "marvel" reduces the count, slightly to 5250, so I think my point still stands. I don't see how the sources in the article aren't reliable, and even they weren't, AfD is about notability, not about how well the article is sourced. There are plenty of WP articles with no sources, and none of these have been AfDed. Yilloslime (t) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of reliable sources has already been addressed. As far as your take on AfD, I'm afraid you're very, very wrong. Troll down the list for any given day at AfD, and you'll find several causes proffered for nomination, among them the non-existance of reliable sources ... something that trumps non-notability, come to that. RGTraynor 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here because I've previously edited this article. I edited it because Mr. Ploeg emailed the photo submission queue to submit and photo; in that same email, he also told us his birthdate with the intent of having that added to the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge (yeah, I'm fun that way.) I'm not seeing anything notable on him. However, Mukilteo Fairies are pretty plainly notable and article on them should be created. Currently they redirect to Mr. Plague, but should be the other way around. Above cites clearly make them notable. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster _talk 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Briginshaw[edit]

Richard William Briginshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)No sources; the creator himself says this comes from personal knowledge which creates a conflict of interest and problems with original research which is all of what this article is. Notability by Wikipedian standards seems unlikely. -WarthogDemon 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. I made this because I wasn't sure, asked an admin and they weren't sure either. Seems notable so I'm withdrawing. -WarthogDemon 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article is accurate and he really was a life peer, then he's notable. Meachly (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know much about peerages, but it seems that someone who was made a baron must have done something right. Perhaps the article would be improved if someone added the reason for his distinction? ... discospinster _talk 01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real and notable; see, for example Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Ma^t_chups 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now, needs WP:RS. Being a trade union leader and life peer makes him notable per WP:N, but we need 3p sources, personal knowledge is not enough. See [38] and plenty of other Ghits. – ukexpat (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the primary author). Reason for adding this article was that I noticed that the name was linked to from the List of Life Peerages in wikipedia and from the page showing the leaders of the trade union NATSOPA. A life peer serves in the UK House of Lords which is analagous to the US Senate (analagous, being the upper house of parliament, but much less powerful). The subject would seem to meet prima facie at least one notability guideline from Wikipedia:Notability (people), "Any biography - The person has received a notable award or honor" (Life peer). Also as a politician, "Politicians - Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (A life peerage conveys membership of the House of Lords, which is a national legislative body). I felt it best to be honest about who I am (subject's grandson), and to put down only simple statements of fact about the posts held. See ukexpat's link for 3rd party confirmation of the peerage and [39] for third party confirmation of the subject as a leader of NATSOPA. --Briginsh (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a long entry in ODNB, which is more than adequate both to establish notability, and base a decent article on. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 02:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Improper nomination. Go elsewhere to acquire discussion of this kind (examples: talk pages and RfC. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Walter[edit]

I created this article, but I'm unsure about genuine notability. I'm taking it to AfD for consensus. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes it is notable. It requires some clean-up though.--RyRy5 talk 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was prematurely closed by SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) who argued, "Improper nomination. See reasons for deletion. This is not the proper venue for your concerns," and cited WP:SK. Taking into consideration criterion #1, and good faith for both SyntheticMaggot and HisSpaceResearch, I think the least harm is done by allowing a fuller discussion of the subject's notability. In particular, SyntheticMaggot has not proposed an alternate route for HisSpaceResearch to open up the subject's notability to consensus. I don't believe there is a more appropriate venue than AFD and an early closure just begs for an even more process-oriented meta-discussion at DRV which would likely be turned back to AFD in the end regardless. So let's just wait for a real consensus here in the interests of expediency and simplicity. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still feel this needs to be closed. The article is sourced and appears at least semi-notable. A request for comment or request for good article, or something similar would have been more appropriate. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I didn't cite speedy keep (that was the result). I cited policy, more precisely reasons for deletion, as the nomination contains no reason to delete. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think an implicit rationale for deletion on notability grounds exists, and given HSR's contribution history I'm willing to take that on good faith as the intent. The DP "reason to delete" requirement is there because many times nominations that do not have a rationale grounded in policy are merely disruptive, e.g. "George W. Bush, who likes him anyway?" or at best may be mistaken about Wikipedia processes (e.g. someone escalating their own article to AFD after a PROD). In this case, we don't exactly have a notability noticeboard, so opening a discussion at AFD -- the next best thing -- seems appropriate. Discussion is good, process is (if taken as an end in itself) bad. There's no harm in letting two or three more people chime in that the article is clearly compliant, and either way WP:CONSENSUS is served. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bio NB and RfC are two places I would have rather taken this. Just because the nom did it in good faith doesn't mean this is the right place to address his concerns. If I don't see a reason to delete from either you, or the nom, I'm closing it again. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment At this point there has been enough input that I feel consensus is satisfied, so I have no objections to a speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and if reliable sourcing can back up publication claims then notability would be unquestionable. - Dravecky (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims seem to hold up; I added a news story about an exhibit of his photos at Red Rocks. There's probably enough opinion here now for a speedy close, while still satisfying the nominator's desire for a second opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nom is withdrawn, then it can be a speedy keep, and all is well. Ty 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I certainly don't see why this should be speedily closed. Before the fifth reference was added, the article had no multiple, reliable non-trivial published secondary sources cited. But since that reference was added, I'm more convinced of genuine notability. I feel in these borderline cases, AfD can be appropriate place to take the article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy close" is simply the term for an AfD, when there are only keeps and the nom withdraws. You wanted feedback and that's been provided. It would seem to be a bit indulgent to keep it running further. Ty 12:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayata[edit]

non-notable, nonsense ~ priyanath talk 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this article was deleted once before. ~ priyanath talk 01:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part unsourced dictionary def + part gibberish. Has been deleted before after a being prodded. Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Some dicdef; some nonsense; previously deleted. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete poorly written, unsourced, previously deleted, contains nonsense gibberish, dicdef... there's just too much wrong with the article to keep it. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin 3: Invasion of the Pikmin Planet[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable.--Mifter (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have perhaps even speedy deleted it under the categoy of either patent nonsense or non noteable subject. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable badly written article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "Invasion of the Pikmin Planet" turns up nothing at all outside Wikipedia. Either a hoax or very much WP:CRYSTAL, given the total lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's either a hoax or wishful thinking by a fan of the series (which makes it fanfiction and/or fancruft which is still unecyclopedic anyhow) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An article based on one partial rumor? Indeed, "very little is known about Pikmin 3" except that this article fails every possible test for inclusion. - Dravecky (talk)
Delete - crystal-balling it would appear, or a possible hoax. EJF (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone tag this... I've already done my quota for today on this type of article. Article is WP:MADEUP possible WP:HOAX, fails WP:N and WP:V and in the famous quote in The King and I (film) Et cetera...et cetera... et cetera... --Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:CRYSTAL and slap whoever put 10+ tags on a stub with a wet noodle. That really is pointless and yet pointy all at the same time. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Vehicle (VGV)[edit]

A neologism or an advert for The Game Coach - take your pick. Sources do not seem convincing. A Google search turns up hits like this one - doesn't seem to match the definition in the article. PROD contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An interesting business idea, to be sure, but the page is pretty clearly just an advertisement right now. The google hits for "video game vehicles" that are just model cars from video games (like that linked in the nom's post) appear to be unrelated uses of the term. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like an advert for one company, fails to assert notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should be db-spam'd. It's an ad for the vehicle that Game Coach uses. --Pmedema (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD criteria G11--Gazimoff (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Jerusalem (game)[edit]

I believe that this is an non-notable video game Marlith (Talk) 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Who decides whether and article is noteable or not? But it isn't a long article,very short actually, it doesn't say why it is noteable article.Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on the game anywhere. The (sadly) common name doesn't help, but... Hobit (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep as I can't see the articles Pixelface cites and I suspect at least one of them is a blog/user content. But may well have reasonable sources. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see sources[40] like The Salt Lake Tribune, The Kansas City Star, and The Dallas Morning News. --Pixelface (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i checked out Pixelface's sources, and they're essentially reprints of the same article for local papers. They also cite the same source - Christian Computing Magazine. As a result I'd lean towards arguing that these aren't really third party, although I'm happy to be corrected, as I don't think CCmag can be counted as impartial third party in this case. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to Gazimoff's point above, looking at the snatch of text I can see, the subject is this magazine, which itself contains some details of the game. All well and good, but if it's not the subject of these articles then there's no actual analysis of the game, they're responding to the magazine - without multiple sources which analyze the game itself there's never going to be a passable article, WP:N aside. Someoneanother 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The external link in the article points to a page with a few testimonies, but they're not strong. Someone another 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete - There's one reference. That's worth something. ~~Also, the article is very young. If we start deleting badly referenced articles while they're still in the cradle, we wouldn't have many articles. I think the PROD is premature.~~ But the article has been around for a year, with no effort to reference it. (My bad, I didn't check the year.) Time to let this article go. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd missed that as well, did look at the history but still registered it as a new article. Someone another 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Earl[edit]

N.n. civil servant - head of short-lived agency that failed and had to be wound up. Not done anything else. Cutler (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There has been some media coverage about her [41][42][43] AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of notable government agency (Assets Recovery Agency) with coverage in several reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show notabilty. That the agency "failed and had to be wound up" is totally irrelevant to this discussion. A Wikipedia article isn't a prize awarded for success. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Perretta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:MUSIC; problems with WP:RS. Taroaldo (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be on the cusp of notability, what with a major label record deal and all, but still not quite there yet -- no chart singles, no album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost, but not quite - needs to actually release the album first. As on the previous discussion, if he makes good, then recreate. Otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. Frickeg (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Oh so close and if it was significantly better sourced I'd have to ponder a flip to keep. Recreate (again) when the album is released. - Dravecky (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage verging on significant found was the music week story reporting his contract, which is already linked to in the article. One for next year, perhaps.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] XIII General Session of the International Academy of Refrigeration - 2006 | Thermoelectric News

[2] ZT-Spam for 19990305 (That's March 5, 1999) | International Thermoelectric Society

[3] ZoomInfo Web Profile: Lev Bulat

[4] GG

[5] Roots Archives - Artist : Jimmy London

[6] Jimmy London vinyl records and CDs

[7] YouTube - Jimmy London - It's Now Or Never - Trojan Reggae

[8] Jimmy London – Listen free at Last.fm

[9] Pictures and descriptions of our unsurpassed staff of moderators and judges

[10] About WCASD

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]