Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 8 May 10 >

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The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foiba[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable term; little more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn The {{notability}} tag had me swayed that it wasn't notable. Added references are now sufficient for a stub on this object. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. This article is about a thing, not about a word, hence it is not a dicdef, even it is a stub which looks like a dicdef. Please think a little bit about this distinction, since as I understand you are quite active in AfD. As for notability, oh yes it is very notable in certain contexts. `'Míkka>t 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Mikkalai is right. This is about a natural geographic formation in the Balkans--a huge sinkhole. So, it is noteworthy in its context--and that is the point about the article--and also for its role sadly as a convenient burial ground for various participants during WWII--including the Axis powers. Artene50 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noteworthy especially in the historical context (see e.g. it:Foiba). --Eleassar my talk 05:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I don't feel the article as improved to this point sufficiently distinguishes it from a local synonym of sinkhole or karst (or kettle (landform), although those are glacial and there's no indication in our article of how foibe are believed to have been formed). --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd agree with TenPoundHammer (and the applicable otters) that it's pretty close to a dicdef, but I think it has good potential to expand beyond that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A real thing, sourced, notable, more than one meaning, more than just a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --John (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lee Bush[edit]

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

Appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OGame[edit]

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

this page has been nominated for deletion before, and it was kept with only one source(which I can no longer find). however this source is/was only being used to back up one line in the entire page, I cannot find another source which would pass WP:RS. I believe the page fails WP:WEB as it is not notable and the page has almost no info which is not WP:FANCRUFT. Several tags have been placed on the page over these concerns and from what I can see they have been removed over time without the issues being address. One of the points in the original AfD (in September) was to give the article time, I believe enough time has passed without adequate improvement. John.n-IRL 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current sources are two primary sources (one a forum link), two not in English, and one brief review that is not close to a genuinely reliable source. Tags don't manage to attract genuine sources, so deleting is appropriate now. 2005 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the review which is cited from labusinessjournal.org. It appears users can submit there own articles for the purpose of increasing link numbers. See here. John.n-IRL 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The old source that is now a 404 is available at the internet archive: [1]. It's in German, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also throws a lot of g-news hits, but they're in German as well, so not sure if they are relevant. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-English references are as valid as English ones, preferably with a quote of the referenced portion and a translation. Otherwise it'd be awfully difficult to write about remote cultures, local phenomena, etc. - not to mention that most of en.wiki's traffic actually comes from non-native English-speaking countries. Flag down a German-speaking gamer and this problem will be solved. --Kizor 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get me wrong- not saying they're not valid, I just can't tell. You're right, a German speaker would make things a lot easier. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of these g-news links are forum posts(it seems anyway, cant look at them all), and those from game sites are mostly commenting on the account numbers for the game. Not much information which could be used to expand the article. John.n-IRL 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OGame seems to have a lot of reviews around. None of them seem to be "professional" (I mean published by games magazines) however, and IGN and other sites' policy is not to include browser games as for what I have seen. Examples for the reviews include [2] and [3]. I don't know if they qualify as valid sources. The official forum is the only official place where players are informed about things. Forum links are not seemingly accepted and one can't reference the main site because it doesn't have any information. As for the notability: it seems that the game is discussed a lot around the internet. Travian is even more notable than OGame and those references are not much better. I'm ready to remove most of the gameplay section because its impossible to reference that and the information there doesn't really belong here, I admit. I now ask you: can the aforementioned kinds of sources be used as references? Nyme (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two reviews are user submitted, so not wp:rs. And the forum sites only really reference in-universe info which the page shouldn't really have.John.n-IRL 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that "forum sites only really reference in-universe info"? Don't you see that the ref I used points to the game rules, which technically are not in-universe information? Well, there the usefulness as a source ends. But I think that may be used as a source. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Game rules arn't really far from in-universe(I know they are different), but what the wiki article needs is information about development and reception aswell as gameplay. If the only thing the article can say beyond "2 million accounts" is gameplay/rules information, then it is essentially a gameguide. And the German sources dont seem to provide much information which would benefit the article in this sense. I'll keep looking though. John.n-IRL 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify - I'm going out on a limb here, but I know that the game was incredibly popular for a while, especially in German regions. I'd suggest removing a lot of the manual or strategy guide information, possibly through a transwiki to Strategywiki. Other than that, I'd suggest that the sources would support a stubification, possibly supported with a smidgeon of WP:IAR. Other than that, if someone could find a suitable article to move/merge to, I'd support that, but Browser Based MMORPGs are still a relatively unresearched and undocumented concept. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strip - Completely agree; take it down to what can be referenced from those German sources. If no independent parties care to comment on the gameplay and other game content, then neither should we. Marasmusine (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip - I agree on this too. It is clearly notable and therefore should be worth its article, but I do agree on that the gameplay section may be removed. Merge could be done if there was an article of Gameforge, but I still strongly support preserving the article. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strip if necessary, per Gazimoff. User:Krator (t c) 13:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, concerning the German language sources, I cannot find any that would go beyond "a brief summary of the nature of the content" (wp:Web#Criteria).
  • Keep, the game has over 3,000,000 players throughout the community, which is of clear significance enough to be a wikipedia article. None of the game manuals need to be there, so strip if need be, but the article itself should still exist. --Dark dude (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the number of accounts a site has is not a proof of notability. John.n-IRL 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets say a site has 100 million different IP adresss, but since number of accounts isnt notabiltibility, then thats stupid.Number of accounts does prove notability. (Note, I know this will ne strikenthrough becasuse this is an IP,but I forgot my password, and I didint put in my email adress lol)72.138.216.89 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For a topic with 25300000 Google hits, it seems strange that there are not more independent, reliable English-language sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.рф[edit]

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

This domain does not exist, and is not scheduled to exist, so to state it "is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the Russian Federation" is fictitious. Without the existence of the domain, or any formal recognition of the domain from ICANN, the entire premise of the article is invalid. More information is in the Talk page. kjd (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, but make clear that this proposed TLD, even if implemented on Russian name servers, isn't yet sanctioned by ICANN. ICANN is a coordinating body and has no power to prevent anyone from starting a TLD, only to influence its affiliated stakeholders whether to recognize a TLD. See AlterNIC, New.net, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It follows from the discussion (http://idn.wat.ch/wiki/index.php?title=IDN_ccTLD_Discussion) at a site belonging to ICANN GNSO, that .рф is the preferred IDN domain for Russia, and it also follows that there is a hurry to approve such domains. More IDN domains are discussed there, some with problems, but .рф seems clear. We should however wait before we write articles about .中国, .香港, .日本, .한국, .бу, .бг, .қз, .سعودية. ,سورية, .مصر, .ελ, .κπ, .भारत, .ไทย and more. Some of them are quite unclear what to have. --BIL (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, if the domain is actually implemented then it can have an article. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been proposed and reported upon, so it is neither hoax nor non-notable. If the ICANN rejects it then I think it can be reconsidered for deletion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The references appear to mostly be from the organization proposing this new TLD, which would violate WP:RS and it is about a hypothetical, which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I could see it (and many similar TLD articles) being created when the Internationalized domain name process for TLDs is closer to being finalized. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this isn't the real envisaged TLD for Russia. IANA shows that ".испытание" is currently being tested but gives no mention of .рф. ChrisDHDR 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that ".испытание" means ".test" in Russian and is just to test top-level IDN, like the usage of ".테스트", ".δοκιμή" and more which also means "test" in other languages. ".испытание" will not be the domain for Russia, instead ".рф" is suggested but not decided. --BIL (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Internet Solution Providers of the Americas[edit]

Federation of Internet Solution Providers of the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible copyright violation: http://www.fispa.org/who.php Ultra! 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was G12 as copyvio, by Ohnoitsjamie. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Token[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (including game guides). 90.205.80.239 (talk · contribs) removed the PROD notice, citing this forum thread. However, a gaming website's forum does not represent Wikipedia consensus, and it should be further discussed here. This content already exists on several other sites, including GameFAQs and the Banjo-Kazooie wiki. — Insanity Incarnate 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main[edit]

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

This footballer has never played at a professional level and fails WP:ATHLETE by quite some way. No reliable independent coverage found so fails general WP:BIO guidelines too. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Kanto_(Pokémon)#Safari_Zone and any other appropriate Pokémon regions. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Safari Zone[edit]

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

Article lacks any real world information. may fail WP:FICTION. Ultra! 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kanto (Pokémon). It's not notable enough to stand alone as its own article. ZeroGiga (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Lewis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search on her name only turns up fairly low-ranked stuff from Bebo etc from people of no notability whatsoever who happen to share the name. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins[edit]

Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads more like an ad; makes no actual assertion of notability and seems to be inticing us to buy it via external links. That can be cleaned, but notability is more of an issue. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I'll do that right now. Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN book; I'll also point out the irony that the tags at the top are about as long as the article text (bad sign?!) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RingDivas Womens Wrestling[edit]

RingDivas Womens Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I stubbified this a couple of days ago to get the worst spam and laundry-lists off, but on further digging I don't think this warrants a page. No trace on any news organisation or reputable wrestling site I can find, and the article seems to be irredeemably spammy and sourced entirely from the promoter's own site. It also needs to be pointed out that the company is owned by Patrick Desmarattes, and the article was created by User:Pdesmaratt. — iridescent 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Beren[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Almost G11-able in my book, but decided against it. Blueboy96 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment High COI to boot--author is Steveberen (talk · contribs). How'd this last since 2006? Blueboy96 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notablility.Ltwin (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The sources are valid and other candidates who ran against Jim McDermott are allowed, see Carol Cassady. Although it'd be best if a losing candidate has something more for notability. There is some criticism by Hussein Ibish, but it sounds like that never went national. It's not like James L. Hart with eugenics. So I'm open to switching my vote.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. An article can be a masterpiece and yet still not belong here if notability is a concern. Blueboy96 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay not a policy or guideline. My main concern is that the "rules" on failed candidates itself strike me as somewhat unclear. Do you have a policy, or even essay, specific to this issue? Does a failed candidate being the nominee of a major national party, and having been a subject in the mainstream press, make him or her notable? I really don't know. I'm erring modestly on the side of caution for now until I find clarity on the matter.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians I've decided to withdraw my "weak keep" vote. This person does not seem to have held statewide office or had sufficiently significant press coverage. Still I have some doubts so I'm not voting delete either. I think if deleted it should be "without prejudice" as in a person can recreate it if notability intensifies enough. I'll go ahead and remove him from List of former atheists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I found a NYT story about his petition to the FCC for "equal" radio time, when he was a candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, but that's a fairly minor event that never reached lawsuit proportions. It's amusing that he is now a Republican but not really something notable (especially when you consider the lefty origins of what became the neo-conservative movement). --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable political candidate. He can have an article only if and when he gets elected, which judging by the results last time he ran isn't going to happen. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From: Steve Beren - To: Blueboy96 and others interested in whether this article should be deleted - with all respect, I would suggest that it is warranted to keep this article. I'll try to be objective as possible in explaining why. I am more than just a routine failed candidate, and I am also running against McDermott again in 2008. McDermott recently paid $1,000,000+ in legal fees and fines owing to (alleged) violations of wiretapping laws. He has depleted his campaign funds in paying these penalties, opening up the 2008 race a bit. While you state that I have no other important notability other than as a failed candidate, this is really not the case. I was a far left activist, communist, antiwar activist, Socialist Workers Party member, and atheist from 1968 to 1990, becoming a born-again Christian in 1995. The news articles linked to the Wikipedia article (e.g., the Bruce Ramsey article in 2006) discusses my former communism and former atheism. At www.steveberen.com, you can click on "amazing grace" and read about my conversion from atheism to Christianity. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I started to do the talk show and lecture circuit, especially talking to young people about my communist, atheist past and urging people to seek God and to be patriotic. During my time as a motivational speaker during this period (late 2001 to early 2006) I came into contact with Republican activists, was involved in the Bush re-election effort, and was recruited to run against McDermott in 2006 (and now again in 2008). Because McDermott is a very liberal candidate in a very liberal district, and because I am a former leftist who is now a conservative, the McDermott-Beren election has caught the attention of the media not just as a routine election but as an interesting and unusual matchup. Official filing to be on the ballot is June 2, and if a wait-and-see approach is taken to deleting my article, it will become clear that I am a Wikipedia-worthy subject and not merely a routine past candidate. I respect your intentions and of course I respect whatever the ultimate result of the process is, but I sincerely (and as objectively as I can) believe that it will be borne out on closer examination that this article is worthy of being retained. Thanks for considering this point of view.Steveberen (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)... additional comments by Steve Beren - just to stress that I am not merely a former candidate, but a current candidate, former atheist turned born-again Christian, former communist turned Republican, and former philosophical opponent of the concept of patriotism who is now a patriot. The page as it existed a few days ago had several negative media references, some deliberately posted by me to achieve less COI and more balance through the negative comments. But this might not have been apparent except to those who sourced out and read the references themselves. So I have updated the page, putting greater emphasis on the negative and controversial aspects of how the media and others have seen my biography. I did not mean to "vote" twice, so I have combined my two comments. I am not entirely familiar with the format and process, so please bear with me. - Steve Beren, 3:29 pm PDT, 5/10/08 ..... Futher comments (5/10/08, 10:04 pm PDT) - Wikipedia notability guidelines - this whole discussion has led me to review, for the first time, the Wikpedia notability guidelines - reading them I am sincerely persuaded that this should not be deleted - it is not merely a candidacy, it is a continuing topic of interest, the article has many outside sources over a period of time, the elections are part of it but not all there is to it, and the article is well-balanced, COI is theoretically possibly of concern but in this case does not actually have any reflection or biased content results, and negative comments are fair, accurate, properly presented, and properly sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveberen (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you "vote" twice? I don't think you're allowed to do that,--T. Anthony (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - being a former Communist turned born-again Christian is rather predictable and ordinary, and doesn't establish any notability at all. Any assertion of notability is going to have to rest in the political campaigns, and the standard is, a political candidate is not notable enough for an article unless they actually get elected to a major office (such as the U.S. Congress). Merely running for office is WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it's common. I was looking for examples of it and I've found only a few. (Marvin Olasky is the only definite one I find) However uncommon personal situations in themselves don't make a person notable. If a woman had three widows named George this would be uncommon, but it would not necessarily make her fit for a Wikipedia article. Well unless her life became a TV movie or something. If "The Steve Beren Story" became a major motion picture he might merit an article even if he never gets elected to anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreate if he [chuckle] wins. -R. fiend (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - further comment by Steve Beren. It is not just a matter of "former candidate" or "communist/atheist turned Christian/Republican." It is both those things, PLUS current congressional candidate, plus current and controversial campaign against a very liberal incumbent who has (allegedly) been accused of ethics violations and alleged illegal actions. In Seattle, there are no GOP elected officials, so the congressional candidate is the candidate who is the main public face of the Seattle GOP. In many ways, my campaign follows the campaign role model of the conservative William Buckley mayoral campaign in 1965 in New York City. - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 9:42 am PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 10:50 am PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was WP:SNOW delete, and good riddance. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with state names in the title[edit]

List of songs with state names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another instance of a ridiculous self-aggrandizing, purposeless WP:TRIVIA list. There is no greater relationship between these songs; they are no relevant in terms of genre, theme, or any other important categorization. Bulldog123 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utter trivia. No common thread among these songs save for the fact that they mention states. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article serves no purpose.Ltwin (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, per WP:NOT. I wouldn't object to a category, though I've been pounded on for that opinion recently :-) (In truth, I love lists like this but I agree it is trivia, not worthy of an encyclopedic article.)  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should be pounded on for that opinion. :P Categories and lists are meant to be different ways of doing the same thing. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If this is good enough for a category that can be read by machines, it's good enough for a list to be read by people. Celarnor Talk to me 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivia. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May have been floated as a trial balloon to see how we would react. Pop. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty pointless cross-categorization that results in sheer trivia. Celarnor Talk to me 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Califordeletion JuJube (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a list or category would be very useful- as some have said above, it basically comes down to trivia. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia and listcruft. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it doesn't even include Uncle Bonsai's "Iowa Apology Song", I have no use for it, and I don't feel like adding it myself. No, seriously--another basic listcruft. Eauhomme (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Grant[edit]

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

Article lacks any real world information. Character name, actor name and years of appearance already in List of Brookside characters. Article may fail notability per WP:FICTION as well. Ultra! 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "He was portrayed by Paul Usher and was in the series from episode one in 1982 until 1994 with several sporadic guest appearances in 1997, 1998 and the final episode in 2003" enough real world information to indicate he is very likely quite important. The article then asserts, ..."Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time" Needs some sources,certainly, but apparently the major figure in one of the historically most important soaps. I certainly am not one of those who want to keep articles on every insignificant fictional character. I have myself deleted some of the expired prods for the trivial characters from this series, & changed many others to redirect, working jointly & cooperatively with one of the people trying to screen out the minor articles from the more deletionist side of things. But removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise. One or two of the editors here argue that we should fight for every last possible character article, however minor, because otherwise people will try to delete even the most major. I still think that';sanover-reaction, but its nominations like this which make me see why someone might feel that way. Has enough real world info to show its a fictional character (many of the articles here a year ago didn't even do that); "may fail "WP:FICT" is a interesting way of putting it,because there is no agreed text of WP:FUCT, and the entire guideline and the necessity for one even remains totally disputed. anything and everything may fail WP:FICTION., but I cant imagine any acceptable version of it would elude the key characters of the culturally key fictions. But someone who knows the material must actually make some effort to source the basics at least, and the evaluative comments--thee are certainly enough sources judged by the other articles on this series--the details of the role in the plot can come from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He appears to be notable, although most news articles mentioning him are old and therefore subscription.[4]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Didn't watch the series, but he's one of the few characters I can name. Googling confirms he was a key character and mainstay villain for a considerable period, something like Den Watts or Phil Mitchell in EastEnders. I'm no fan of the proliferation of articles about minor fictional characters either, from whatever medium, and in an ideal world this would redirect to the List of Brookside Characters which would carry potted biogs of the more important characters rather than being a bare list. In the absence of this, if any characters from Brookside merit a separate article, he's one of them. --Karenjc 08:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep/Keep I had prodded some days ago, but after a discussion with DGG, I convinced that if there is any character in this soap that can be considered as important it's "Barry Grant". The article lacks enough real world information and I am not sure if the character was any significance outside the show but I hope this article can be improved and I would like to ask people more familiar with the subject to do so. I declined the option of merging this file into the list of characters since there are only names and years of appearances. Any merge would make things worse and not better for the List. I suggest we keep the article and hope for a serious improvement. We have to be a little patient and we can reconsider after some time. Extra comment: I am more worried about: George Jackson (Brookside). The charactered is much less significant and the reason I didn't prod him, it was this trivia section there which tries to give some real world information. But on the other hand, I can't verify if the information given is true of not. Please someone give a look at it as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect though not sure where. List_of_Brookside_characters would be the logical place, but that is simply a directory at the moment. Indeed, this entire universe is dire need of cleanup. As for User:DGG's point above: wrong wrong wrong. Mention of the character in real world contexts are simply in conjunction with the actor's career (who moved to the Bill); that is not real-world impact per WP:FICT. And as for the article's assertion Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time unless I see some credible source for that claim, I'd dismiss it as ridiculous guff - the kind of stuff that needs be expunged from Wikipedia. So: where's the real-world claims of notability for this character? Where's the real-world significance and impact? "Removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise." Are we reading the same article? Is that rhetorical escalation really justified by a completely in-universe article of a minor fictional figure that makes no claims outside of that in-universe world? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. Main character of a top TV soap in the UK of long standing. If one really enjoyed reading soap or gossip mags, or some TV commentaries, there would be loads of 3rd party refs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Tanks[edit]

No evidence of notability or coverage by third party publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any third-party coverage (because download sites don't count). I kind of thought I would, since I remember it being very popular when I was in high school, but perhaps it was just popular there. I was actually playing it when I saw this AfD. Freaky. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found a CNET review, isn't massive but it helps, full review on Inside Mac Games and part of a games review round-up on Macworld. Together they just clear notability, for me. Someone another 12:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the record, the nytimes.com link you provided above is NOT a "C|NET review". Note that no author is credited for the "review". It is a user-submitted download page hosted by C|NET ala download.com and the like. (jarbarf) (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the CNET review is actually by an editor of the site - contrast it with the user reviews tab. Also per Someone another. User:Krator (t c) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation needed. What is the name of the person who authored the review you are referring to? I only see the co-op'd download.com link. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Haber[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Menzies7 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin (Veruca Salt song)[edit]

Benjamin (Veruca Salt song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly inclusionist with singles, but I think I have to draw the lien here. I just can't see any notability here. Feel free to point out whatever obvious point I've missed, however. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Britney's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article should be deleted. TN‑X-Man 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Administrators Day[edit]

Soccer Administrators Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No unique sources (indeed, one of the external links is dead), there are zero google hits for "soccer administrators day" and only three for "soccer administrator day", one a blog, the other two sites related to the supposed day. Nothing on Google news with either name. Corvus cornixtalk 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very Strong Keep Soccer Administrators Day is followed by 25,000+ youth soccer administrators. It is recognized by USYSA affiliated clubs, administrators & state organizations country wide. It is built in the same framework and structure as Administration Professionals' Day and Teachers' Day. It is a legitimate and genuine holiday that celebrates hard work of the youth soccer administrators. On The TouchLines Article --Jrydar19 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Jrydar19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This link here is the only link I could find for this "day". One blog posting (and apparently how the "day" was created) isn't enough to verify it's notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't tell us it's important; show us the sources, not including those from the organization that promotes this "holiday". --Russ (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Guess what google turns up- you're looking at it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A decidedly non-notable "holiday." (Not to be nationalistic, but we call it "football" in my country!) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (I was right) by Blueboy96, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grading Living Dead Dolls[edit]

Grading Living Dead Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
How to Grade Living Dead Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two identical articles are pure original research, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or instruction manual. PROD removed from one without comment, so I bring them both here. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Joneses[edit]

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

There's ... almost nothing to say about this movie. No coverage whatsoever, actors are all redlinks, and it's in preproduction. Blueboy96 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, film is scheduled for release in December apparently only in Boston, where the previous film by this team was released. Not even to DVD. No reliable sources for the film or its creators. Corvus cornixtalk 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All three references say it's in production, and WP:MOVIE says "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines," which I don't think this is. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus, it's spam. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:Movie sorry, try again after the press notices its release LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN as yet; recreate if secondary sources emerge. —97198 talk 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pimps and Whores[edit]

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

Yet another Myspace act with — when you strip away the waffle — what appears to be a grand total of one self-published single under their belts. When the highlight of your career is "being mentioned on website PopJustice" (for those who care, the "mention" in full was "It's only 'alright' but perhaps it will please some of the people who think Kylie should never be allowed to release anything which isn't a complete amylathon with feathers on its head and sequins cascading out of its arse"), I think it's reasonably safe to say you're not going to pass WP:BAND. But, this has been up for a year now and worked on by multiple editors — some of which aren't even SPAs — so maybe I'm missing something... — iride scent 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out there's a flying pig[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Watch out there's a flying pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another Pink Floyd bootleg. As someone always contests these, bringing it straight here instead of {{prod}}ding. — iridescent 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structured data interchange[edit]

Structured data interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't seem to find any reliable source backing up the claims made in the article. The XML model for Office 2007 is OOXML, not Structured Data Interchange. No sources turn up in a Google search linking Microsoft or Office 2007 with SDI. In fact, structured data interchange is a generic scenario designed to be facilitated by RDF (think semantic web); and that is not a MS endeavour. The article has been orphanned and without edits for a long time. soum talk 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the nom states, structured data interchange is simply a phrase meaning the interchange of structured data. While one might use the phrase in association with transfer of OOXML documents (which are an example of structured data), that's about as far as the connection goes. Article is almost certainly unsourceable - I haven't found any sources, anyway. Jakew (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. This isn't some mystical OOXML thing. The nom is correct in that the article is really only about that instance of the use of the subject in an environment. That said, I think a decent article could be written about the scenario itself, not just how it happens in OOXML, but the best thing to do at this point would probably be just to delete it and start over if someone wants to take the initiative. Celarnor Talk to me 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not conversant in the technical details, but if I understand you folks correctly, reliable sources are not likely to be found for this narrow topic. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has no sources and makes bizarre and unbelievable claims:
    • It's XML, but based on SGML? Aside from this being contradictory, nobody uses SGML in new systems anymore, including Microsoft.
    • Independent of operating system and hardware. Since when does any data format depend on these? WillOakland (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster talk 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Einstein[edit]

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

Was a removed Prod. Article is about a college basketball player that is not the coverage of any secondary coverage. The article is most likely a hoax. ~ Eóin (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Despite several WP:ILIKEIT comments from IPs, policy does not support the continued inclusion of this article. - Philippe 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Men's Room (radio program)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Men's Room (radio program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently sourced - references appear to be self-referential. In the absence of a good dose of old fashioned reliable sourcing this article appears to fail on both verifiability and notability Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources are unreliable (YouTube, MySpace, etc.), and the few that are reliable are just trivial in nature. Fails WP:RS then, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with TenPoundHammer that none of the sources are reliable, all either from social networking sites, the station itself or very, verybrief mentions in local newspapers. Therefore it fails WP:RS. Not all morning drive shows are notable, in fact very few are. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 2 references to the Seattle Post Intelligencer but my concern with this article is it's notability. The show is in a large market and I'm sure is very popular but it's still a local radio show. Some sort of recognition outside this market would change my mind. A significant award or syndication outside of the local market. Even being named to the Heavy 100 would indicate some notability. Not every show in a large market is notable. The images also have copyright concerns. --Rtphokie (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strictly a local radio show. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, the cast of the show and the radio station have all reviewed the article on air and agreeded with it. If you guys want to hear them talking about it, I can send you guys the podcast. The cast of the show feel that they deserve this article and have talked to wikipedia spokesperson and that spokesperson has said that they had enough evidence to have an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.126.49 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete,
    • the station broadcasts the show live via their website, meaning it can be heard worldwide
    • the show has also discussed the Wikipedia article on-air several times. It was because of the popularity of the show that the article almost immediately received numerous updates from fans of the show.
    • numerous times per weeks, people who have been listening online have written to the show from different countries across the world, including England, Japan, Australia, and France.
    • The show has been consistently getting top-5 ratings in the Seattle area that they broadcast out of since they began on KISW-FM in 2006. Before that, the same was true on the previous station, KQBZ-FM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.199 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Show is notable for it is broadcasted on internet live around the world and many listener's from various countries across the globe write expressing their pleasure of hearing the program. It is also broadcasted on a huge local, being the entire state of Washington, not just Seattle.--Machineking1313 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The podcast is downloaded from around the world and the market which it is broadcasted on is the entire Seattle area. The show is also on one of the premier rock stations in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete
    • many of the referenced YouTube videos in question are direct, on air performance, proving the shows ability to remediate itself through different outlets
    • the wiki in question was discussed on air with Wikipedia staff, which noted that the second major edition (current edition) of the Wikipedia met guidelines and had sufficient evidence to prove both notability and worth to the Wikipedia community
    • the show holds a large market share via radio broadcast in one of the largest rock radio markets in the country, the very same market that spawned many of the bands played during the shows afternoon time slot
    • also worth noting is that Steve, Miles, Thee Ted Smith, and Ben are not just disc jockeys as are popular on other stations. The show has a hybrid talk, news, and music format, which makes them Seattle/Western Washington personalities, more so than just DJs. They host events throughout the Seattle and greater Puget Sound area, and are recognizable beyond the radio.
    • the show survived station change, time change, and format change (from 100.7 KQBZ-FM to 99.9 KISW-fm) with much of its original audience intact, as well as adding the replaced Tom Leykis listeners, and more Seattle radio fans — Cougrrr (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: of the three Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports (there are three, not two), one contains a paragraph about the show, and the other two mention the show in bullet-points. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

It is a very good show to listen to. VERY original!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.52.185 (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable, haven't developed anything yet, just a group of hobby developers — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Essentially says it's not notable ... only game listed on there is "under development." And unless I missed something, the only Yahoo hits that talk about this particular company are their Website and Wikipedia. Barely misses an A7 ... but if a somewhat more rougish admin feels inclined to spike this, be my guest. Blueboy96 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also am tempted to nuke this, but I'm gonna let AfD run its course. Very clear failure to establish any notability; I'm amazed this gets preference for disambiguation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Saga Studios (Film Production). --76.69.168.235 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Write Love on Her Arms[edit]

To Write Love on Her Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails to establish notability (listing amount of "friends" on FaceBook; noting encouraging messages received on MySpace??), reads like an advertisment and possibly Wikipedia:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. Appears to be a noble cause, but I don't see what seperates this from another clothing company with philanthropic ideals. Also, unreferenced and per the article they've only recently been established as a non-profit group (October 2007). -- Endless Dan 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to [7], the band Switchfoot is touring in support of the organization. Other news hits: [8], [9], [10]. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its not just a "clothing company with philanthropic ideals", TWLOHA is supported by many bands. Some of the article (facebook stuff etc) does seem like it is a little too trivia based but i think the article as a whole should stay. More work should be done on the article but that shouldnt mean it should be up for deletion. Perry mason (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a non-profit organization that just happens to have gained a lot of popularity on Facebook and MySpace. If anything, it should be expanded and cleaned up to remove the advertisement elements. Spartacusprime (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Almost and Paramore also support TWLOHA. Paramore even has their own version of one of the shirts. As Perry mason said, it's not just a humanitarian-type clothing company. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitherd (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

--JForget 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Steed Jeffs[edit]

Seth Steed Jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seth Jeffs recieved a little bit of media coverage when he was arrested and later convicted of aiding his fugitive brother. But that fact itself doesn't satisfy WP:BIO notability guidelines. Reverend X (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Freely viewable sources found are press releases, so notability hasn't been established.Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kessel Food Market[edit]

Kessel Food Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I kind of feel bad for this one; growing up as a frequent WNEM watcher, I always enjoyed this chain's ads with founder Al Kessel throwing grocery products in a cart at random. However, for a chain that went under in the 2000s, I'm finding almost no verifiable information on this chain. The only sources I could find were either press releases or trivial in nature; the rest of the article is a directory of their locations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: how about these? (maybe the second and third sources are trivial in nature?)
    • Mary Hendrickson; William D. Heffernan; Phillip H. Howard; Judith B. Heffernan (2001). "Consolidation in food retailing and dairy". British Food Journal. 103 (10): 715–728.(haven't read this; it's a paid source)
    • Serwach, Joseph. "With large chains and specialty stores looking to expand their markets, Detroit becomes a Grocery Battleground." Crain's Detroit Business 16.50 (Dec 11, 2000): 3. General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Montgomery County Public Library (MD). access date: 15 May 2008 (one paragraph in a full-length article) (password-protected)
    • "Kroger relocates divisions. (Supermarket Aisle)." Drug Store News 25.4 (March 23, 2003): 6(1). General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Montgomery County Public Library (MD). access date: 15 May 2008 (one-page article) (password-protected)
69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and the source that are cited are press releases. As a result, this article reads like borderline spam.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation. I hear and agree with the comments by my colleague DGG, whose judgment I trust, but it seems fairly clear that the consensus here is delete. - Philippe 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Millar[edit]

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

NN. General notability states that the person needs to have received an award or been nominated for many. Millar has not. He also has not made a wide-ranging contribution to his field. While he has written a Masonic history book, I had never heard of him or the book until I saw his WP article. GHit-wise, it's his website, WP, and then Amazon (where the book is no longer available new). The statement in the article about his "works being prized in Masonic collections" is misleading - there simply aren't that many such collections. The Museum of Our National Heritage in Lexington, MA, and the George Washington National Monument in Alexandria VA are the two leading Masonic museums in the US, and they have none of his work. The Masonic and esoteric research groups he is a member of are open to anyone who pays for membership. As a creative professional, the requirements are: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors - No. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique - No, he is notable for making Masonic memmory ais that no one makes anymore because every place that needs one has one. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - No. A gift given to the Grand Lodge of New York's library and covered in their in-house magazine is not independent. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries - No. The first three are not met, as shown above, and there is no indication that his work has been seen anywhere aside from New York. Therfore he meets none of the criteria for notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow, what a thorough analysis. The nom says it all here -- this guy, plain and simple, fails all the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • not so fast Freemasonry, a history is, according to WorldCat, in about 70 US libraries. Given the general scarcity of public and academic coverage of the subject, that might be significant. The publisher, Thunder Bay Press, is a fairly wellknown specialist publisher, not a vanity publisher. and as Masoneria : zarys dziejów it has been translated into Polish. Not saying one book makes him notable, but also not willing to assume the art isn't notable either. I don't trust that anyone has "said it all" till I've looked for myself also. Not saying the nom is wrong, but needs a search by someone else also who knows the subject. DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm willing to consider that he's a notable historian of Freemasonry, but the lack of secondary sources in a search of Google Books, News Archive, and Scholar is not promising. Many of his publications have not been in fully independent journals, either. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a fairly minor researcher, nothing stands out to establish importance. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and makes no claim to notability. Doing some research and writing a book (even a book on obscure topics like the history of Freemasonry) does not make an author notable (anyone can write a book) - as the nomination states, there are criteria that make an author notable and this author has not met them. He does not meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals nor those listed at WP:PROF. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. - the article, granted is unsourced, but as it contains information on a publishing author can be still maintained. It may not be of a notable subject, but as the freemasons are obscure i belive that this article should remain. failing this this article could be merged with the larger article of Freemason and included as a subject of interest under a new topic of Freemason publications perhaps

Gray-martyn (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... are you saying we should have an article on an author who is not notable, simply because he wrote about an obscure topic? That just does not make sense to me. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Ryan[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability of the subject and does not cite any references or sources. -MBK004 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bogard[edit]

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

Not a notable character in the Fatal Fury series. Does not seem to have appeared as a fighting game character. JuJube (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Christ... *Shakes head* This is OBVIOUSLY a hoax. Just WIPE IT OUT. It was created as vandalism and should be dealt with as such. ZeroGiga (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete by User:Toddst1. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Kofmel[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP violation and should be deleted. The person's notability is doubtful to say the least: the third edit was a speedy deletion request. A single user has made almost all the edits to this article, and that user has almost no other edits. In this context, to begin the article by describing the person as a self-confessed egotist and a controversial figure is beyond unacceptable. We can do better than this. Please delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to From First to Last. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Good (American musician)[edit]

Matt Good (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Tagged as such since Feb. Damiens.rf 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ongoing conflicts 2007-current by world map[edit]

List of ongoing conflicts 2007-current by world map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

self-confessed image gallery Sceptre (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These images are all PD and on Commons, so this can be handled with a subcategory under the existing one. Categories of images act as galleries. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If only we could put Clearasil on the world's red blemishes. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the creator of this article I agree that a subcategory under the existing one would be better. All I want is that the images won't just disappear in cyberspace. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from article space. I'm not sure what the nominator is suggesting. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It could be cleaned up a little, but it's not a terrible article, and seems to meet our policies. . - Philippe 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viral email[edit]

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

Insufficient context. On February 8th, 2007 the article was tagged with {{context}}. I believe this was a valid tagging. From that date nothing has ever been done to the article to improve it. I came across it today, and tagged it with a speedy tag of A1. The speedy tag was later removed. I beleive this article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Rockfang (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Viral e-mail is not synonymous to e-mail virus. An E-Mail virus is a harmfull program spread trough e-mail, with the intention to cause mayhem, steal data and similar. Viral Email refers to the marketing strategie to spread word about product or services quickly. If there would be a word closely related to it it would be spam, but i still don't think the meaning of those two words is similar. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the reasons that "viral" became an acceptable marketing term is that computer viruses don't spread through e-mail the way they used to. "Viral" all by itself means marketing, not malware. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They do still spread through email, judging from my spam folder. There might not be as many attachment-based viruses, but the websites linked in those messages frequently serve only to install malicious software. In this context, I'd still label such messages as viral emails. nneonneo talk 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, we're talking about a certain behavior of e-mails. This is used by viral advertising, but not only. Some computer virus may spread like this too. Cenarium (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article accordingly, don't hesitate to edit and add sources. Cenarium (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Per Belovedfreak, this is a notable subject. Afd is not cleanup, we don't delete when we have satisfying alternatives. The article needs to be edited, true. A merge would be appropriate as a last resort, but there is enough material for en encyclopedic article. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Viral marketing; very similar concepts, and a lot of overlapping information. Gary King (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't even about viral emails, it's about viral marketing as a whole. No new information here that's not already in viral marketing. Snellios (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to computer virus or trojan horse (computing), which is what I though this would be about from the title. Turns out it's more sales talk about the prospect of endless riches by getting people to use email forwarding to propagate your advertising for you. The article's text doesn't even say that, and neither defines the subject but contains only vague musings on viral advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone I know would certainly understand the meaning of "viral" here as indicating a marketing topic, not a trojan horse. If I went back in time to 1998, maybe, it would be different. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to viral marketing. E-mail is just one of the means of spread. It's a valid and appropriate search term but not sufficiently separate as a topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the computer-virus-laden email (which I am still getting to this day), and the marketing term. I'm not so sure the title is obvious. nneonneo talk 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The "see also" works fine, and the recent article expansion looks excellent. nneonneo talk 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This concept is different from that of computer virus driven by emails, as asserted in the Observer article. If I understand the various sources correctly, this phenomenon is analog to that of viral video, and is used in particular in viral marketing, but not only. It's a type of emails that propagate like a virus, from peer to peer. This behavior is different from spam. Actually, there is no article where the subject can be merged without giving an inaccurate or partial information. There are different types of viral emails, for example: emails spreading due to popularity (for instance, the George W Bush example from the Observer), emails part of a viral marketing campaign... It needs to be clarified on the page, in the intro, we may use {{otheruses4}}. Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a significant subject in its own wright. The confusion here indicates it needs a good rewriting and expansion.~~
  • Delete, neologism from the internet marketing world. Nothing to indicate this is a sufficiently separate topic from viral marketing nor sufficiently notable in its own right for its own article. Alternatively, would support either a merge/redirect to viral marketing, or a disambiguation, both as suggested above, but in any case just not keepworthy. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added sources for the article to the talk page from world-famous newspapers indicating that this subject is notable and not a neologism any more. Cenarium (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge weak keep - after reviewing the references and such, I still have a hard time seeing how this is really different than viral marketing. Email is just one of the important ways viral marketing spreads. For those that recommend it being merged into computer virus, I strongly disagree as that appears to be a very different subject. As far as things like the existence of viral video, the video is the subject, not the method of viral marketing propagation. Viral marketing is also spread via the water cooler, phones, web forums, etc. I don't articles on those. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's different because it's a certain behavior of emails, viral marketing use this behavior for profit. But this phenomenon is not restricted to viral marketing, there are a lot of examples where viral emails are not used for viral marketing, for example the Bush example, and others in the references. The goal of viral marketers is to create a promotional email with a strong probability to become viral. Cenarium (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then merge the non-commercial parts into chain letter, which already covers email, web forums, etc.Wrs1864 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the changes that bilby made, I have changed my opinion to a weak keep. I still can see it being merged, but bilby added quite a few good references. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've done what I can for the article, and I think that there should be enough non-trivial references to establish notability and context, although it still needs a lot of work. In particular there are a number of academic papers devoted to the subject, and while I've tended to focus on those from marketing, the discussion is somewhat broader than that. Merge might still be viable, but I'd suggest it isn't the best choice here - the term is in fairly common usage, and encompasses more than that covered by either chain letters or viral marketing (indeed, most viral emails have nothing to do with marketing at all, and in many cases viral emails are very much anti-marketing). Certainly much of the literature concerns marketing, as Wrs1864 has identified, but it is also covered by some of the "humor" literature as well as the communication studies stuff. Anyway, if it survives AfD I hope that someone more knowledgeable in the area will be able to expand it - if not, there's now (hopefully) better stuff to merge. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you and Cenarium just rescued the article. Great job! nneonneo talk 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into chain letter (or into viral marketing), but do not redirect (people may be looking for "e-mail virus" instead – you may wish to consider disambiguating). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWiK[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Per guidelines on the notability of web content, there is no evidence of historical signficance, impact, prominent achievements or major innovation. No awards or independent coverage. Parent company, SourceLabs lacks a wikipage also. WLU (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference. I'd almost say it establishes notability, except it's from July, 2005 - nearly 3 years old. It'd be nice to have some evidence it's expanded or done something in the 3 years since LM reviewed :( WLU (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Silly[edit]

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

Debut single by unknown rapper V.I.C.. Prod was removed on the basis that "Soulja boy's involvement makes it notable", but Soulja just produced the song (he's not the composer, performer or even backing vocal) and made an appearance on the videoclip. Damiens.rf 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, G3. Obvious hoax. Blueboy96 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Higgins[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable amatuer. No real g-hits. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. it's referenced now. :-) . - Philippe 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hunt[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show host. Subject apparently hosts a weekly (Saturday) late-night show carried on a handful of stations. No independent references whatsoever. Google turns up a press release on carried by Reuters and not much else independent. His show has a "hate" website (allenhuntshowsucks), but that's about it. He may become notable someday, but there's not enough sources to support it right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge into the WSB station article. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject has been the focus of multiple articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a reliable secondary source, and is nationally syndicated. Article could be a bit more encyclopedic but it more than meets the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you could add some of those AJC references, I would be inclined to change my opinion. The AJC was the first place I searched and I came up with nothing -- and yes, I checked my spelling. I must admit I was surprised at how little I could turn up about him during his tenure at Mt. Pisgah UMC, as that is a pretty prestigious pastorate, but the mainstream press (confession: I work for a major metro daily newspaper) sometimes is a bit lacking in religion coverage, unless you're Jeremiah Wright. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I had already added these sources to the article. In the References section, they're #1, 2, and 4 at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what we're looking for, and thank you. I'm still at a loss as to why Google didn't pull that up for me, but maybe the Google gods didn't like me (or Allen Hunt) that day. If you find a ref about his switch to Catholicism, you might add that, too. I'm going to let this AfD run its course, but I'm considerably more assured of his notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. A unanimous conclusion. Unsourced and clearly fails WP:BAND. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Messengers Quartet[edit]

Gospel Messengers Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group, fails Google test, just a obscure group that disbanded, no lasting impact on culture, economy or society — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methcore[edit]

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

Neologism (see WP:NEO). Partial copy of Metalcore. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life support[edit]

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

I propose deleting the whole article. Everything on this page is covered by basic life support, and all it has is a disproportionately large paragraph on the catholic church's objection to the practice. It could be removed, or added as a paragraph somewhere else. rakkar (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & Redirect. Paragraph in question could be moved to other page, but needs some cleanup first; it's fairly poorly written. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This article and basic life support have little in common; the nominator appears to misunderstand one or the other of these articles (probably this one, as it's not very well written). Mechanical ventilation is the only intersection that I can see. BLS is something that is done by prehospital personnel (EMTs, first responders) whereas the subject of this article is something that happens in the hospital. This article is poorly worded and needs some reconstruction - it may well need to be moved or merged with something; however, a merge into basic life support is a mistake, as there is little overlap. I believe that it does cover a real and notable topic; were it better worded my vote would be keep. The religious objections portion of this article is questionable but may pass muster; I'm undecided on that paragraph. Merenta (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move life support (disambiguation) to this location, and include both Basic life support and Advanced cardiac life support in the list. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't a disambiguation page be called a disambiguation page? Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merenta is right. Life support is a completely different subject from basic life support. I'm surprised that this is such a weak article given the potential things there are to say about it. Maybe there is another one on the same subject hiding out there and it can become a redirect. In any case, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion. It should be flagged for improvement and left to grow. That's what Wikipedia is all about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Merenta and DJ Clayworth have stated this article refers to a different subject than the emergency medicine basic life support article. It could be expanded quite easily (I'll willingly have a go at it!) or there may be something out there which it could be redirected to but certainly not basic life support or the life support (disambiguation) list which consists of discussed article plus fiction articles! Yes it appears to have a disproportionately large ethics section but IMO it should be left to grow. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, but definitely a notable topic. Terry Schiavo taught us that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to basic life support as it contains no useful and unduplicated information, without prejudice to expansion if proper information becomes available. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a lot of work, but definitely a notable topic. It's not at all the same as basic life support, so the article shouldn't be redirected there. Klausness (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Dhartung's solution. I'm surprised at how inadequate this article is, but I don't know enough to improve it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already a Life support (disambiguation) page, and the general topic of life support is different from both Basic Life Support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support, so I think this page should stay as the stub it currently is until someone expands it. It's a notable topic not covered by any other article, so it's worth keeping. Klausness (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Klausness. The merger proposal seems entirely wrong---Basic life support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support are obviously about EMT/ER-level interventions, while Life support is about the (instantly recognizable) phenomenon of being hooked up to life-sustaining machines in an ICU. The article is pretty bad, but you have to start somewhere, and the topic is distinct and notable.Bm gub (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: article seems POV. It contains an assertion that in some cases it may be unethical; then, it points out that the Catholic Church, which is commonly thought of as favoring it, actually has a more nuanced position, and concludes by saying that it may actually be illegal in some states, thus leaving the impression that nobody believes it ethical to unconditionally prolong life. Also, the article lacks sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It may be useful to re-evaluate this article once it has been allowed to develop for a month or so.  Sandstein  06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 2008 presidential candidates' religious associations[edit]

Renamed to: Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign
AfDs for this article:
Comparison of 2008 presidential candidates' religious associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a fundamentally flawed concept for an article, as it gives undue weight to issues that received little or no attention, and doesn't even include anything on Obama, whose controversies have received much more attention. Moreover, the article contains an extended hagiographic defense of Senator Obama, and could easily be campaign literature. Trilemma (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and the fact that the article's title is "Religion and politics in the U.S. 2008 presidential campaign", but the first sentence makes it clear that it won't be mentioning Obama's pastor, which has gotten the greatest amount of media attention. Happyme22 (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wiki for a reason. Ewenss (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign has been a major theme of coverage in the campaigns, from Romney's Mormonism and his speech, to Huckabee the former pastor, to Obama and the Muslim charges and Wright, to McCain and Hagee, etc. Plus sources debating the validity/non-validity of all that. Like I said on the talk page of the article, Immediatism is going to have to give way to some fair Eventualism as various people chip in as their lives permit. All the article is now is an intro written in 10 seconds and a copy-paste of material deemed too long (by chiefly Happyme22, and a few others) from the Wright controversy article. Ewenss (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs work, and of course it needs at least a precis of the Wright-Obama affair, but those are content issues not relevant to AfD. Plainly this is a highly notable, and eminently sourceable, business.  Ravenswing  13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Comparison of people's religious views is by definition an analytic exercise that requires OR and POV. Thoroughly unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed: Renamed to: Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign Ewenss (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I have not seen that it was moved. But it does not change my opinion about the article. Its substance has not really changed and the topic itself is a clear magnet for POV pushing, OR and various fights that inevitably follow. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you're saying that if a topic is controversial, Wikipedia shouldn't cover it? As long as there's anybody in the country willing to pay two kids to delete sourced material about something twice a day, we defer all coverage to copyrighted encyclopedias that are paid to deal with inappropriate editing? (Or as a compromise maybe we can let the kids write it and then permanently-protect their version...) Wnt (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - although I agree with him, this user was just blocked for using sock puppets including Ewenns who voted above. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is notable, there is no question about it. But that is not the point. The point is that the topic is analytic and synthetic in nature and unavoidably requires OR. Also, it is a clear magnet for POV pushing and a veritable disaster in terms of balance and undue weight (just look at the current state of the article). Making polemic and analytic articles like this is the right way of turning WP into an ideological battleground. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the argument is that the problem of the article is that it doesn't include Barack Obama, then add Obama, don't ditch the article. That's kind of the idea of a wiki. There is no question that religion has been a factor in this race, with Huckabee's fundamentalism, Romney's Mormonism, and Obama's being portrayed both as a Muslim and a member of an anti-American black church (and of the post 9/11 anti-Muslim sentiment that exists in many). While our American 1st Amendment allows for Freedom of Religion, the fact has been that it has been difficult for anyone outside the religious mainstream to get into a top level position in American politics. Eauhomme (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the comments of Eweness, RG Traynor, JeremyMcCracken, and Eauhomme. With a stipulation, however: that the article is cleaned up and made more NPOV in the near future (thirty days seems like a reasonable time frame).--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a news website and nobody will care about this after November. If kept, move to Comparison of 2008 US presidential candidates' religious associations, as the USA is not the world. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, moved already. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a fundamentally flawed concept, the article is clearly pro-Obama and its intention is to give excuses for the actions of Obama's pastor by describing "the criticism of Wright [as being] fueled by racism or double standards". The article goes on to list religious criticism of other candidates, which is all mentioned elsewhere on the respective articles for the candidates. The article's purpose is to promote Obama and to criticize the other candidates, and is an effort to minimalize the Wright controversy. This is not something that should be on wikipedia and I see no way it in which it can be cleaned up.--Southern Texas (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this user was also (surprisingly, to me at least) indef blocked for being a sockpuppet. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with STX, this is fundamentally flawed. Religion per se has not been a major factor in the 2008 presidential election, with the modest exception of Romney and LDS. The other controversies mentioned in this article have not been about religion, but about the usual political game of "Let's find somebody candidate X has been associated with that has said or done some outrageous things, and see if we can tie that somebody real tight around X." The same game is played around non-religious figures too, such as Obama and Ayers, Giuliani and Kerik, and so forth. Each of these games that is notable enough can be covered in the individual campaign articles; there is no reason to subset the "religious" ones and make an article out of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Someone started this article with text spun out of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but the article may be improved with a little editing. I may try my hand at the text in a bit to see how it can be fixed - please check the revision before acting on the previous comments. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I've now made a first pass editing the text to demonstrate that it can stand on its own as a useful article. The article still carries some more subtle defects from its origin - all the references were originally chosen because they talk about Obama, because they came from the Wright article - but I think by now it should be clear that this article is worth keeping. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much of the concern about this article stems from the issues of WP:POV and WP:OR, and those are certainly valid. However, I believe that they can also be avoided if the tone of the article is focused on the role that religion played in the campaign and/or the voters' perceptions of the candidates, stated as objectively as possible and very well sourced. For example, mentioning that there were concerns with Jeremiah Wright's statements and Barack Obama's relationship with him, and stating what they were, or the false accusations of his Muslim religion and how that was an issue post 9/11--very easy to fall into WP:OR/WP:POV, but well-sourced could also get past that. Also same with issues on Mitt Romney's and Mike Huckabee's religious beliefs, etc. Eauhomme (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the entire concept of the article. I admit that Wnt's version is much better than the previous one. But the subject of the article is still too abstract and ill-defined to stand on its own. The very concept of the article is analytic and synthetic in nature and is thus fundamentally flawed. With such an amorphous subject matter there is no way to effectively deal with undue weight and balance issues that are going to inevitably arise here, especially when the article attracts more attention. How much space and in what kind of detail is there supposed to be devoted to a particular candidate? What is and what is not appropriate to discuss in the article? And so on. The article is an obvious magnet for OR and POV pushing and a recipe for all sorts of battleground problems. The factual material covered here is already covered in other articles with more well-defined subject matter, where all of these problems are easier to contain. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that Islam or evolution are "potential battlegrounds". If you think the article is bad for some valid reason, fine, but so far as I know Wikipedia has not yet formally surrendered to vandalism and disruption. If people decide to make a policy against articles on politics, articles on religion, articles on anything controversial etc. then I won't be able to prevent this deletion, but as for now - you have no grounds for this deletion. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure what planet people have been living on if they think this topic is not eminently notable and source-able. 74.233.86.244 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - POV isn't a rationale for deletion, it's a rationale for improving the article. This is obviously an important topic in presidential elections - evangelicals are a critical voting bloc for Republicans, Catholics and Jews are courted by both parties, though lean Democratic; in this election cycle, there's been controversy over Romney's religion, Huckabee's being a minister, Obama's relationship with his minister, and the list goes on and on and on. The article could probably use a complete rewrite, but those are problems that are solved by editing, not deleting. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Religio-political controversies in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. The way it is now, the title doesn't match with the content of the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "U.S." should be added to the name, but is "religio-political" a word? The precise name isn't really relevant to the AfD anyway.Wnt (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of patriotic songs[edit]

List of patriotic songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV,WP:Cite and WP:V. The fact that songs like Born in the U.S.A. (song),Danny_Boy,Swing Low, Sweet Chariot are included here shows how just about any song that mentions a countries name can qualify or is even remotely associated to a country. Ireland is a other case where one mans patriotic songs is a other mans Rebel Song and sure if Waltzing Matilda is in why not No man's land? Gnevin (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: That doesn't handle the basic problems: defining patriotic songs in a way that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and determining which songs qualify and why. I can't see a consensus developing on either.  RGTraynor  15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially the commentators are split on the question as to whether this is a dictionary definition or whether the page can be expanded to produce a full-blown encyclopaedic article. Taking into account the discussion on the previous AfD I see no easy resolution of this dichotomy through the AfD process. The page has been tagged for merge discussions but has yet to pick up any comments. My suggestion is for interested editors to engage the merge discussions which seem the best option for a consensual way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary DeeKenn (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A non-notable and trivial topic that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm actually not sure whether an encyclopedic article on this topic would be possible or not, but the present one definitely isn't it: it's primarily a trivia dump of times its's been mentioned in popular culture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Cum shot. (Gods, the things you never thought you'd wind up typing on Wikipedia ...) While I'm sure there are a zillion hits, there's no real notability beyond the other article.  RGTraynor  14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFLOL :) Debate (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a serious or educational article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cum shot Facial (sex act). There are plenty of references to this in books, demonstrating notability. Unless there is enough content to develop it beyond a dictionary definition, then it doesn't need its own article and can be merged to Cum shot Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per  RGTraynor  and BelovedFreak. DCEdwards1966 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Belovedfreak's revised merge location. DCEdwards1966 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cum shot, since it's really a subset of that anyway. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is a dictionary definition, nothing more. (I disagree with merges proposed above; this is the result, not the act.)  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary definition. I agree with Frank that it doesn't really seem to fit with Cum shot. (Not relevant to the discussion, but ewwwwww!) Aleta Sing 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that Cum shot is mostly about porn, but it also refers to the act of ejaculation. That's only a small part of the article though, and unreferenced. A more appropriate merge would perhaps be Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cum shot. I'm with RGTraynor on this...I never thought I'd say anything like this on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and I prefer facial (sex act) as it's more specific. A cum shot can be any ejaculation, but facial refers specifically to the ejaculation onto the recipient's body. Technically this could be anywhere from the face to the buttocks (and I suppose the feet if you like), but there isn't an overall term for this that I know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reason I gave above. Also, a merger with Facial (sex act) isn't wise, IMO. That article deal entirely with the facial's role in pornography. Absent the "Role in pornography" section, and the article is yet another definition for a slang term, bringing us full-circle. DeeKenn (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful educational little article about a taboo subject. In the world of HIV we need to know all this stuff. Cum shot is about porn movies & hardly relevant, but facial (sex act) would be a possibility if editors don't want a separate article. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop further. Thee are certainly a number of sources for the use meaning and signicance as a sexual practice. Shartung is correct there are more general terms--this one is specific. DGG (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, no potential to be anything but a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Cum shot. It's a common form of human sexuality... If people can't handle it, then they should stay off the internet. User:Pwscottiv (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a common practice isn't the issue. DeeKenn (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge So far as I an see, this article is not entirely worthless. It should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree perhaps not in its own article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a very popular and notable sexual slang term. Plenty of reliable sources available on this topic.
    • The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English by Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, Page 1455.
    • Pornography and Difference by Berkeley Kaite. (1995) Page 117.
    • Endgame: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen, Page 203.
  • According to Pornography and Difference,
The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines pearl necklace as:

Thus pearl necklace is a term used to describe the semen ejaculated on a woman's throat. It has usage in pornography also. Pornography and Difference (page 117) gives detail explanation of the term, why the word "pearl" is used and its usage. This term has equivalent in Sanskrit also. For the Sanskrit eqivalent, see A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by Arthur Anthony MacDonell, Page 229. Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor by Wendy Chapkis includes pearl necknace within "much safer sexual activities" (page 170). Popular Modernity in America by Michael Thomas Carroll (page 118) mentions the background of the origin of the term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That it is well-defined and widely-used isn't the issue. The issue, to me, is can the article be taken further than just a definition? I have Partridge's book as well. I worship J.E. Lighter. I love words. I love etymology. I love slang and idioms. But, I also like my dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I (think) I know when they should separate. DeeKenn (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; see no reason why it can't be expanded beyond a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Why does this have less encyclopedia entry-potential than Mastication? Baiter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a good example of an article that needs merging. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. DeeKenn (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as mandated by WP:V, a core policy, because of the lack of reliable sources. The "keep" arguments do not adequately address this issue.  Sandstein  06:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's law[edit]

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

Neologism. Doesn't exist beyond some forums on the net; no notable usage. Was deleted before in 2005 for the same reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Essentially a stealth vanity page for some random guy on a forum. "Sourced" to the forum itself and urbandictionary. Calling it a neologism would be too kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: ostensibly not a "vanity" page, since it has been created by me, and I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Poe. WP:NOTE should be judged based on the references given based on precedents for adages of online-culture such as Godwin's law, Hofstadter's law, Hutber's law, Ševčenko's law, Wirth's law and other "laws" you may never have heard of. The deletion in 2005 was due to practically no google hits (48). In the meantime, this number has increased by a factor of >100, and the adage is listed in the Urban Dictionary (which I grant you is not the OED). dab (𒁳) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urbandictionary is notorious for accepting absolutely anything submitted to it, and for having no practical fact-checking whatsoever. Attempting to use it as a source is silly enough, but when it's the only source, well... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and per Andrew Lenahan. No reliable sources to indicate notability and widespread usage of the term. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Scienceblogs is often considered a reliable source and a number of their bloggers discuss the notion. See for example [12], [13]. I'm not sure in this case that we considered them to be reliable sources since it isn't directly related to their area of expertise. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nedinect to Cole slaw as an aterdative to demete. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources (blogs generally don't qualify under WP:RS). One can also say it's a neologism. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amounts to a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neoblogism. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came to Wikipedia to find out what it meant, because I had seen it used so often. If the article hadn't existed, I'd still have been in the dark. Noisy | Talk 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of an argument for a keep is that? Reminds me of Jimbo's quote featured in WP:V:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad it won't be here much longer then. I guess it's back to Google for the curious. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable neologism. Merenta (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see it a lot, it's actually gaining noteriety since 2005, three whole years ago.

71.62.4.205 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some verifiable evidence, please? Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How about citing a reliable source or giving some policy-based reason? Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My policy is "If I think it's notable, I say 'keep'". Sorry, that's my opinion. You're welcome to yours. --SeanO (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing "poe" as one who mimics fundamentalists here: [14] Rhebus (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single reference to a blog/discussion forum that does not pass WP:RS. I would like to see actual evidence of sufficiently widespread usage confrmed by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not another WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some actual sources, per WP:RS and WP:V? Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas James Rouse-Cramp[edit]

Nicholas James Rouse-Cramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article; this fellow just plain does not exist. No hits on Google Australia, and Lord Leopold Mountbatten died without issue.  RGTraynor  12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel larkin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. A barely-18-year-old green belt for whom the only sources [15] come from her martial arts school. Unlikely to be improved from here. Article created by an SPA.  RGTraynor  12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete getting to green belt isn't really a claim of notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does winning a national Under-18 title meet the barest or bare bones for notability? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Not when the site claiming she did is affiliated with her martial arts club, and there are no reliable sources referencing it. This may also be a case of the Eddie the Eagle being the UK's champion ski jumper syndrome; how many underage female jujitsu practitioners are there in New Zealand? Beyond that, my own martial arts days are a couple decades past, but back in the day, a green belt wouldn't have gotten you high odds of being the top underage fighter in your own dojo, let alone a national championship; it's a rank not far above a novice in most belt-ranking disciplines.  RGTraynor  17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SJJNZ is the official sporting body for Sport Jujitsu in New Zealand, as recognised by SPARC. The titles are legitimate. Rachel would be considered one of New Zealand's top junior female fighters which I think remarkable. I would think that most of the comments above are made by people with limited or no knowledge of Sport Jujitsu in this part of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.73.175 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming SPARC does certify this outfit, it's a New Zealand governmental association. The International Sport Jujitsu Association recognizes the New Zealand Sport Jujitsu Association [17] as being the official sport jujitsu body.  RGTraynor  12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different grade structures occur at different clubs. As an example to get a black belt at judo might take 2-3 years, while for jujitsu a black belt might take 6 years. Belt colour should be an issue in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.118.69 (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Dômeki[edit]

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

This article is a) not notable(it's about some third character from an incredibly obscure anime) and b) written in a completeley unencyclopedic way. Oh, and also, it has no references --124.40.47.157 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, xxxHolic is far from obscure. Indeed both the anime and manga are very popular right now. And it's far from unsourable either. I get numerous Google News hits and even some Google Books hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching under alternate romanizations (is ô really the official English spelling?) and looking at reviews for xxxHolic, it looks like enough has been written about this primary antagonist/rival of a very popular series to convince me he passes our notability guidelines. Leaving this without a !vote for now, as I don't have time to sift through the metric LiveJournal's worth of fansites. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to List of xxxHolic characters. It contains no assertion of real-world impact or significance and there is no reasonable expectation that such impact or significance exists. Standard practice is therefore to merge to the character list. I note the xxxHolic world contains numerous articles that are in-universe fandom and not encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not a fansite. A major cleanup and merge across the whole corpus of articles would be appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not wrong about the xxxHolic suite needing cleanup. Might take a while for the WikiProject Anime and Manga to get to it, though, as their cleanup list is pretty big at the moment, as articles get added faster than we can work on them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as that's concerned, most of the CLAMP-related articles need major cleanup... pretty much every CLAMP series article I've looked at has some form of trivia section linking it and its characters to CLAMP's other works. —Dinoguy1000 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, most of the crossovers can probably be sourced, as they're canon. Eventually, it'd be good to compile up a solidly sourced article on the CLAMP multiverse. I'm not the one to do it, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under Quasirandom's rationale, or merge if there is enough reason. Katsuhagi (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink (Mindless Self Indulgence album)[edit]

Pink (Mindless Self Indulgence album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (one that might not have existed, to boot), fails WP:MUSIC due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. (Previously deleted via PROD, restored when PROD was contested. See Talk:Pink_(Mindless_Self_Indulgence_album).) Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball. All relevant information is already in that article, so nothing more to merge. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seripa (Dragon Ball Z)[edit]

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

She is just a minor character. She only appeared in one movie, and her article asserts NO notability what so ever. It has no reason to be on this site. ZeroGiga (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Exceedingly minor character of the movie, let alone in the context of the entire franchise. No reliable sources on which to base an article, and given that the series has ended, there's not much prospect for there ever being any. Fails notability guidelines. Xymmax (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I've never seen any of DBZ, but this seems to be an extremely minor character. I note that in our article for the movie she appears in, she's not mentioned in the plot section at all, and only briefly in the section on "inconsistencies" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of France-related topics[edit]

List of France-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just a poor copy of List of basic France topics. It is pathetic for an article of this nature. ChrisDHDR 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax/vandalism. ... discospinster talk 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter (Roller coasters)[edit]

Scooter (Roller coasters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax - Text taken direct from Racer (Kings Island) with minor details changed. Debate (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, also as hoax:

JoE PaRk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bavarian Beetle (coaster) ceased operation 1979, see [18]) Debate (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to a lack of any claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Laboratory[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as patent nonsense/vandalism/editing experiment/snowball clause/whatever else criterion there is. This page should have never gone to VfD; Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toby stapleton[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - vanity. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clues[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, what's going on? There's a comment showing up below this AfD (but only on Deletion Today, and not in the source for that page) that makes an invalid argument (WP:CRYSTAL) for keeping some other article that isn't up for deletion and, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - spam. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Newport 5[edit]

The Newport 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed spam]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, ruling party of Canada for many years etc, probably bad faith nomination . Davewild (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada[edit]

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

minor unknown Canadian political party. Of insignificant value. Shizukujapaneserice (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)— Shizukujapaneserice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy keep. Does not appear to be a good faith nomination. The party had major representation in the Canadian parliament for much of the 20th century and had been the governing party in Canada for a substantial part of the 20th century as well. Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and warn the nominator. Obviously bad faith; either WP:POINT or a joke nomination that just wastes our time. 23skidoo (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete `'Míkka>t 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ponetivity[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. No hint in google books [19]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it somewhere, but perhaps I'd write it as a neologism in wiktionary instead. With goodness in mind (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. (Those who are more conservative in the definition of "patent nonsense" may substitute "vandalism" or "editing experiment" for the reason.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Radiation[edit]

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

If the information presented in the article is true, it will be ground-breaking in the history of science, but it is unverifiable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Just plain vandalism! Electricbassguy (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box - mic - Jox[edit]

Box - mic - Jox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as vanity and patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Reader[edit]

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

FailsWP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete There is no question that it has no place on Wikipedia. LittleOldMe (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buried pain[edit]

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

Not written in English. Notability questionable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, the notability is questionable. "Buried Pain" gets a bunch of Ghits until you add any of the members' names; then you realize none of the hits are relevant. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I translated the article into English; I don't speak Portuguese, but this was rudimentary enough that I could do it based on my French and Spanish. (I'm inclined toward a speedy for failure to assert notability.) AnturiaethwrTalk 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - attack page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACTDEC[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Deleted 5 times in the past. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is blank now apart from the AfD notice, but the most content it's ever had is [removed as a courtesy]. (The last sentence was added once and reverted by the author as "persistent vandalism and defamatory comments.") Violates WP:N and WP:SPAM at the very least. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that wasn't the author; it was someone else. The "persistent vandalism" was added by the author. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Nonsense neologism. Speedily deleted a) for completely lacking any meaningful content and b) on the grounds that an article about a word you have invented is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hielle[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article fails to assert notability) by Spellcast. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khizar12[edit]

Khizar12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) by Nyttend. "Absolutely no assertion of notability". WilliamH (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cemanahuatl[edit]

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

This is just the Nahuatl word for "world". As far as I know it doesn't have any special mythological meaning that might warrant having an article about it. Ptcamn (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-sim[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not how-to-guide. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, but I'll gladly provide a copy to anyone who asks. - Philippe 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Family Farms[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to keep my article, please tell me what to add or delete to make this happen. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by grand95 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete, recreation of deleted material. Suggest guidance is given to new user as well. Paulbrock (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A re-creation of a speedily deleted article is not automatically a speedy candidate, unless it meets the criteria on its own. In fact, I have restored the deleted revision; it can be viewed here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, thanks for the clarification! Delete as failing WP:N then. Paulbrock (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N, also WP:Spam. Debate (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Google News or Books hits, and only 9 web hits (5 not counting WP and their own site). Reliably sourcing this seems unlikely. Not up to WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company does not meet WP:CORP.  Frank  |  talk  19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources cited, no evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines. Reads like an ad. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sufficient facts to indicate a corporation with sufficient notability among corporate farming producers. I don't think this is a candidate for a snowball delete, but the author needs to be aware of Wikipedia's standards. This could be cleaned up. Whether it will be cleaned up is another matter. Note to grand95. I've done a rewrite for you, although it's not enough to spare your article from deletion. Your prior version can be found by clicking on "history". Save the article to your computer. Read the policies in WP:CORP, particularly the section that says "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy."]] Take the time to read articles about other corporations. Look for some sources to back up your statement that the company ranks in the "Top 50" of businesses of this nature. If the company truly does supply 17 different brands of bottled water, provide some facts. Besides mentioning the Morrises, mention such cold hard facts as, say, how many employees the company has, what their gross annual sales are, etc. Wikipedia is not anti-business, but it isn't free adverstising either. You're new. It takes time to learn how to write an encyclopedic article. Bear in mind, however, that there have been articles about restaurant chains with franchises nationwide, and those have been deleted as well. If the statements made in the article are true, then the company may meet the test for corporate notability. Anyway, save your article (and prior versions) now, because it's been deleted once and it's going to be deleted again, probably for the sam reasons. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was : Invalid nomination, article already redirected to Maniac Magee. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac mcgee[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nom. Are you intending to nominate this redirect, in which case your arguments don't apply,and it would need to be raised under WP:RFD,or the article Maniac Magee,in which case the afd is incomplete? Paulbrock (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(looks like a near edit conflict when adding the afd) Paulbrock (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triumph (album). While we aren't obligated to make this a redirect, it is a plausible search term so a redirect will do more good than harm. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blinding Light Show/Moonchild[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blinding Light Show/Moonchild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album track. Was never released as a single and is not a significant compostion among the artist's catalog. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the information I posted on there, as it was 100% accurate. You must forget that I run a Triumph fan site and have knowledge of the band from very reliable sources. I do not appreciate you following behind me removing honest information for whatever reasons like your some kind of expert. Plus it WAS a notable album track, who cares if it was never released as a single, it is one of the most famous songs by the band. AllTriumph
  • Redirect (with possible weak merge) to the article on the album this song belongs to. Plausible search term, so we may as well take the people to where the relevant information is. -- saberwyn 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:No apparent notability, and we aren't obligated to have a redirect in place for every song ever released.Kww (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. - Philippe 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago M Rosell[edit]

Santiago M Rosell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prods. User has created articles on himself,his father and his friend, none of whom meet notability requirements. See also this version, before I tidied it. Paulbrock (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Also included in this afd:[reply]

Santiago P Rosell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aaron Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paulbrock (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, Santiago M Rosell is far from not meeting notability requirements. Indeed he is not as widely known as some would like right now but he will rapidly become a house hold name very soon. Just because he USER made articles on another cyclist and Santiago's Father does not mean he is worth deleting His Father and fellow cyclist are very well known with in the industry they are associated with. I get numerous Google News hits and even many google web hits. Santiago Rosell 15:55, 9 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.244.41 (talk)
  • Can you provide links to the searches you did? I get 0 hits with [21] Paulbrock (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity - as evidenced by the staggeringly immodest self-promotion by the ostensible subject of the proposal in this very section. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Clearly falls short of our current standards for athletes. As for "rapidly become a house hold name very soon", well, good luck with that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest of deletes complete and absolute garbage. JuJube (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep, Here is the link were you will find any amount of websites you need with info on Santiago http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enBE237BE237&q=Santiago+Rosell.Sandman921 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.244.41 (talk) [reply]

    • Comment Enclosing it in quotes gets under 400 Ghits, far less impressive. JuJube (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Listen I appreciate and understand why all everyone wants this article delted but the end fact is the subject is making a name for him self and doing well at it he has been racing in Europe for years busting his but and is finally seeing the fruits of his labor.

Sandman921 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Keep, I strongly disagree with previous posts that demean the efforts of this young man. It might be argued that he may not have followed the exact guidelines for publishing a page on Wikipedia, but his notoriety in his sport is no less that the current featured article or the same as many others found on this site. Just a quick review of his name on Google should prove the results of his commitment to his sport. The Cycling Center is a proving ground for cyclists in Europe and his association with Johan Bruynell (Lance Armstrong’s coach) is a testament to his potential. Personally, I detect a note of selfish editorial rubbish. I might suggest you invest your time more wisely.Sandman1950 (talk 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They seem like nice, successful people...with not a shred of independent notability. If notability is established (later), then an article will be appropriate...later still. (See also WP:CRYSTAL)  Frank  |  talk  19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteThese are articles that demean professional and top amateur cyclists who have truly "made it." Must be deleted. Let's see what these kids do in a few years. They are obviously talented and good cyclists, but by no means do they merit entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth8a (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. So far the keep proponents are making general WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I have not seen any solid and virifiable evidence of notability by independent reliable sources presented for any of the three people in question. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability established. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is always nice to see peoples comments on something they know absolutely nothing about this guy is not demeaning anything or any one he is a cyclist who has over come more than most and is doing something no one has done before. But no matter what is said people will want to delete it it is just how the human brain operated always to focus on the negative. In conclusion this Kid does not need wiki for the success and fame that he is receiving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.244.41 (talk)
More WP:ILIKEIT arguments. If he is really that successful and famous, there shouldn't be a problem with finding and citing reliable sources to that effect. You are welcome to do that and when you do, I'd be happy to change my vote. Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no claim of notability and possible copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard greenman[edit]

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

No significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Speedy keep, article has been moved to Misari Regatta and translated. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

미사리[edit]

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

Article is not written in English. Notability questionable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - bio of real person that fails to assert notability) by Lectonar.. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zigler[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. Google search shows only 8 ghits [22]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax/vandalism. Debate (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint McGeady[edit]

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

Zero Google or Google books hits for name, or his "famous quote", that aren't this wikipedia article. This is a hoax as far as I can discern. SGGH speak! 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per SGGH. That's why I marked it with the hoax template. • Freechild'sup? 10:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I've tried searching under various alternative spellings. Claim re 110th Medical Battalion is dubious, as it wasn't formed until 1 Dec 1917 and at the time was known as the 110th Sanitary Train, which is a title that might not have been the best start for someone looking for a political career... :) Debate (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, but reluctantly, as it made me laugh out loud.--Berig (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The article describes the subject as a politician but doesn't mention any political office he is supposed to have run for or been elected to. The article may possibly be an attempt to smear either the Democratic or Republican Party, or both, with charges of racism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax or, more probably, attempt to harass someone by the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to this being a tribute to my grandfather Clint McGeady. He had a failed political run for governor, he didn't even make it out of the democratic nomination. This is not a smear, or jibe at a party, but instead a way that people may be able to see the great man that was my grandfather. --Footyfan78 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to see any sources you can add to the article to support his existence (see WP:V) since he sounds fascinating. Debate (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7 by Neil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luc laurent[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Fire_Emblem#Anime. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Emblem (anime)[edit]

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

There are NO sources, doesn't assert notability, and from what I can tell from the contents of the page alone, it's a VERY short OVA series. It fits in just fine with Fire Emblem (series) , I see no need for this article to exist as its own stand-alone entity. ZeroGiga (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List_of_Earthlings_in_Dragon_Ball#Artificial_Human_.2318. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 18[edit]

No. 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite being a main character in DBZ, it appears Ms. 18 doesn't have enough sources to assert notability to her article. She should be merged with the Earthling List, or wiped out, give or take. ZeroGiga (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nomination. I leave it up to better DragonBall Z fans than I to decide where and how much. -- saberwyn 10:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: As per Wikipedia:FICT#Fictional_elements_as_part_of_a_larger_topic this actually depends on how much information is sourced and/or how much information is in the real world. A character can be non-notable and still get its own article if there is enough information. The article is to be treated as a part of the parent article. First we would have to trim away information and make sure it is encyclopedic. If there is too much encyclopedic information for the character's section to work in a list, the character may get its own section.WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone? anyone who volunteers to help this article? I like number 18 having her own article... thanks Ehccheehcche (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - Either way, this doesn't have the the information to back up a claim of notability, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that, brotha! ZeroGiga (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Quasirandom. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. In-universe notability != wiki-notability. Expansion requests from half a year ago were ignored, so merging is the next best option to deletion. – sgeureka t•c 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If deleted, someone will just add 18 back to the list of Earthlings. So why not just do it now? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a main character of a notable franchise is worthy of an article. WP:FICT lacks consensus so it's hard to "fail" it. Sourcing concerns fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT not deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable as evidenced by lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doubtful that such sources exist. Article is mostly plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the criterion that a character must have independent external source to be appropriate for a spinoff article (rather than to be a major character in a major work) is disputable & disputed and does not currently have consensus. An article can be mainly plot summary when appropriate. Dr.F. uses his preferred version of the guidelines. DGG (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per nom. Non-notable character with little to no available secondary source material. DGG, the ideas that "an article can be mainly plot summary when appropriate", and that independent external sources are not required, are entirely in contradiction to the policies of NOR and NOT, as well as the guidelines RS and WAF. A subject's coverage in reliable secondary source material independent of Wikipedia is our primary means of establishing that subject's notability. There are no special criteria or sets of rules for so-called "spinoff articles". The same policies & guidelines about notability and sources apply to all article topics. This is precisely why we have hundreds of cruft articles about non-notable fictional characters such as every Pokemon, Dragonball Z, and My Little Pony character. There can be information about these characters in the main articles, and there can possibly even be list articles devoted to characters in different franchises, but they are certainly not notable enough to each warrant separate articles. I realize you are more of an inclusionist, but as an admin I'd expect you not to make such statements that seem to directly contradict so many of our core tenets. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: contains same very similar wording as to [23]; not sure which is the original. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the website is a messageboard debating whether this character or Samus from Metroid would win in a fight, I'm inclined to believe it copied its content from Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List of Gears of War characters and adversaries. --jonny-mt 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Fenix[edit]

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

I know he's the main character of Gears of War, but it appears that this guy doesn't have a chance here. He doesn't assert enough notability to maintain his own article. He doesn't need his own page, and should be merged in with the character list at this rate. -- ZeroGiga (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hang on a minute, have you had a look for references? There's no indication in the nomination or on the talkpage that this has been done. As the main character in a blockbuster game (which is character and plot-focused) Fenix is more likely a candidate for an individual article than most. I'll take a look when I get minute, but considering that the character is returning for a second game and voiced by Bender from Futurama's voice actor [24] there's a chance. Someoneanother 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Protagonist of one of the most notable games of the present era. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop with the excuses man. Just because he's the protagonist, that doesn't let him off light. He needs SOURCES and PROPER REAL WORLD INFORMATION. While the game he's from is notable, HE'S NOT. In fact, he fits just easily into the list. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, to GOW Character Page; outside of a plot summary, there's not much other information to state about Fenix that would not belong on the GOW's Character Page. The GOW Character page itself is also under construction. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above; also, the article is mainly gamecruft, and much of the content merely reiterates the plot of Gears of War. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Needs a lot of notability to sustain a whole article, and it has yet to show it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Gears of War characters and adversaries as we did with many other characters of the same game many months ago. There is no way to gain notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after summarizing. This is excessive detail for an encyclopedia, and verges on game guide material in violation of wikipedia policy. See also WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and protected redirect per the above. largely gamecruft and no assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main character of a notable series is verifiable and significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although that is merely an essay, your reading is idiosyncratic:

    Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft.

  • Comment: As others have said, "cruft" is just not a helpful word in these discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Starblind, as well is the product of notable person John Dimaggio. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Strong delete, possible copyvio [do a Google search on "During the course of the game, Fenix" (with the quotation marks).] 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List_of_Inhumans#Allies_of_Maximus. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Timberius[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book criminal. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mannix[edit]

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

Minor voice actor. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy ball (Charmed)[edit]

Energy ball (Charmed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page for Charmed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete, together with all the redirects. Fails WP:N Ohconfucius (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough. I was thinking there might be some tiny amount of material in here that could be salvaged for the main article, in which case a redirect would preserve history. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sigel[edit]

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

This is a short article, the subject of which is notable only for being a contestant on the popular television series Hell's Kitchen. Though the series is of unquestionable notability, I hardly believe this contestant of the reality TV series deserves an article about himself for doing nothing of particular interest or notability besides making Gordon Ramsay vomit. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Hell's Kitchen. The content can best be covered in a sentence or two at that article. —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, either that, or just DELETE altogether. ZeroGiga (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to the article on the reality TV series. A contestant in such a series is a plausible search term, so we may as well take the readers to where the information is. -- saberwyn 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mkeranat (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notoriety beyond the appearance on the show. Vomit incident already covered in main article, so no need to merge. SpikeJones (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnotable contestant, who will very unlikely have a television career -- or even a househhold name. Making Chef Ramsay barf is nowhere as notable. -- azumanga (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough to have his own page - Tazz765 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable; has only been in one show. — Wenli (reply here) 05:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel-o.D.[edit]

Mel-o.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician per WP:BAND. Article doesn't assert any sort of notability, only sources are myspace links, and most of the artists he has worked with are redlinks. Google did not turn up any reliable sources. Additionally, the artist is clearly the author of the article which is a conflict of interest and only further indicates this is a vanity/promotional piece. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. An extensive search returns only MySpace and self published links. Debate (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alright this is jamel himself speaking, im not using this site to promote myself, more like give myself a place to have an official bio, im a producer why would i need to promote myself, and the only reason why alot of these things are red linked is because some of these sources are either no on here are i dont know how to link them correctly, anyone who reads the information on this page clearly sees what I was trying to accomplish here, something that cant be done on myspace which is being taken seriously, I like this site I think it embodies a standard of seriousness and completetion that is unmatched by other social sites made for average people, im clearly not average so I do not see the problem here. and yes you can google me and find me on other websites, if need be I'll prove what I must in any way I can, I have great respect for this site and its community of user. -Mel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meloddot (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to Wildthing's comment below, you should probably familiarize yourself with reliable sources and notability criteria for music as well. I know that you are a new user and I sympathize with you, but arguments that are not well-grounded in policy do not hold much weight with the administrators who decide the result of these debates. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't remove content as you did here. It is considered vandalism and will certainly not help your case. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, when you make comments, do not overwrite what other user's have added as you did here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mel/Jamal to quote you from above "...embodies a standard of seriousness and completetion that is unmatched by other social sites...", I think you have this site confused. This is NOT a social site, or a site to have an "official bio", this is an online-encyclopedia. Wikipedia's not MySpace, and if you can show INDEPENDENT sources (meaning links from other people that are not related to you in any way) that can show how you meet WP:BIO, I'd consider changing my vote. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yarnnnn.............whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meloddot (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

google jamel stribling or mel-o.D. click images..... or just browse through the many links i did not publish. I feel like im in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meloddot (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its crazy i actally sat here and typed out everything on my page, feeling like someone might read it and feel good about someone following their dreams, i must have forgot im on earth, I guess i should save all that text into a word pad becuase you guys are gonna delete my page. :+( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meloddot (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blink (band)[edit]

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

No Sources stating notability. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if User:Ijanderson977 has read WP:BAND, but guideline two states that the band must have "had a charted hit on any national music chart." (last time I checked, Ireland was a nation, and several top 10 hits would appear to indicate compliance with the 'charted hit' criteria.) Guideline 3 requires that the band have "a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." (Last I checked, Ireland was also a country, and the album A Map Of The Universe By Blink "went Gold almost immediately"...) Enough said. Debate (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo, meets WP:MUSIC just fine. I also question whether Ijanderson has read WP:CSD. You don't speedy delete for failing notability. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they also fullfill "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" as they played 113 gigs in 32 different US states. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:MUSIC as per Wisdom89, Debate etc. --BelovedFreak 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, they're notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Subject is notable, questionable deletion rationale by nominator perhaps not completely familiar with deletion policy. WilliamH (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Buckley[edit]

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

Not notable, patent nonsense Deathdestroyer (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "patent nonsense" is a bit strong. Marvel Entertainment is a large organisation (US$485,807,000 operating income in 2007) with a huge following. Dan Buckley has a public profile and is widely quoted by a range of media, including the national and international press. Debate (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per User:Debate and MrPrada. Publisher for Marvel? I highly doubt this qualifies as "patent nonsense" in the least, and if it did, you should have nominated it for speedy deltion per Criterion G1. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not nonsense and he is Marvel's publisher.--Berig (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pblisher and COO of Marvel is a pretty big deal, and the nomination doesn't fit (how is this nonsense?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muertos Vivos. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee Song[edit]

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

Contested Prod

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep

It's notable enough becuase a.) it's a single by a notable band and b.) WP:Songs is talking about individual songs, these are singles, which, if by a notable enough band, merits a keep [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect - according to WP:MUSIC, all albums and songs - and therefore by implication singles - still have to meet basic WP:N criteria. It even states that "album articles with little more than a track listing may more appropriately merged....". I can't see anything in the article justifying notability for an article in its own right, so my vote is to merge it into the groups' article, and change this article to a redirect. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Nothing sourced to merge. Wikipedia:Music#Songs (WP:SONGS is a joke page) clearly discusses this very type of situation and call for a redirect of this non-notable song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the consensus reached is Redirect, could the song be merged into the Muertos Vivos Article? [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A Redirect is not the same as a Merge. A Redirect means simply that the article disappears and anyone trying to find it will be taken the the target article (which looks to be Muertos Vivos). A Merge is a redirect with the info from the disappearing article being added to the target. In this case, though, there is no sourced info in the Banshee Song article, so I see a Redirect, not a Merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foot in Mouth Disease. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Tran[edit]

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

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KeepIt's notable enough becuase a.) it's a single by a notable band and b.) WP:Songs is talking about individual songs, these are singles, which, if by a notable enough band, merits a keep [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - according to WP:MUSIC, all albums and songs - and therefore by implication singles - still have to meet basic WP:N criteria. It even states that "album articles with little more than a track listing may more appropriately merged....". I can't see anything in the article justifying notability for an article in its own right, so my vote is to merge it into the groups' article, and change this article to a redirect. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the album, or failing that the band, until such a time as the importance of the subject (the song) can be demonstated to meet the WP:music notability guidelines through the use of WP:verifiable information taken from WP:reliable sources independant of the band or the record company involved. -- saberwyn 10:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LukeTheSpook, and the fact that this AfD is the result of Legotech's anti-Gob rampage. The single itself is notable, by a notable band, and I think it may have charted, but I'll have to double check that. The article suffers from the fact that no one has made any big contributions to it, not that the subject isn't notable enough. It would've made more sense to tag the article for sources than to take it to AfD. This is true for all the articles he has sent. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Non-notable song. Saying it "may have charted" is moot. (If it charted, WP:PROVEIT.) Saying it should be tagged for sources is moot. (If there are sources, provide them.) Saying it's not a "song" it's a "single" does nothing for notability. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS, nothing to merge, so redirect. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Too Late... No Friends. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Them (gob song)[edit]

Fuck Them (gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KeepIt's notable enough becuase a.) it's a single by a notable band and b.) WP:Songs is talking about individual songs, these are singles, which, if by a notable enough band, merits a keep. Also, it's one of there first singles. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, stronger merge. A single by a highly notable band (which I believe this qualifies as), is usually notable enough to keep. However, I can't find much in the way of WP:RS that would advance this past the stub that it currently is. All I can find are lyrics and tabbing. The lack of commentary by third party sources is troubling for this article. Given that, a merge to Too Late... No Friends or Gob (band) might be better. (Also, the article needs a rename to match the WP:MOS) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - according to WP:MUSIC, all albums and songs - and therefore by implication singles - still have to meet basic WP:N criteria. It even states that "album articles with little more than a track listing may more appropriately merged....". I can't see anything in the article justifying notability for an article in its own right, so my vote is to merge it into the groups' article, and change this article to a redirect. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise that WP:UGH is expressed as an argument to avoid? Stifle (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Nothing sourced to merge, WP:MUSIC#SONG says this is non-notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the consesus is delete or Redirect, can the article instead be merged into the album for the song?[LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then establish Fuck Them (Gob song) as redirect to Too Late... No Friends, the Gob album containing the song. A new redirect is needed per WP:MOS. B.Wind (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gob (band). Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Beans And Almonds[edit]

Green Beans And Almonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepIt's an Album by a notable enough band. It wasn't covered that greatly since it was one of there early ones, but i think it needs a wikipedia article because a google search gives alot of random interviews about it from the band, and an article is needed since it is an actual album, not a demo. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't make me go through This Again. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - according to WP:MUSIC, all albums and songs - and therefore by implication singles - still have to meet basic WP:N criteria. It even states that "album articles with little more than a track listing may more appropriately merged....". I can't see anything in the article justifying notability for an article in its own right, so my vote is to merge it into the groups' article, and change this article to a redirect. Since, the Page_44 debate related to the notability of a group, rather than a single, I don't think it's the same issue. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, but the whole point of me stating that was, i created the article for Page 44 and i practically fought to have it not deleted, it had been deleted 2 times before. Also, Legotech seems to be abusing his editing privlidges by adding multiple AFds to all GOB-Related articles. [The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the consesus is delete or Redirect, can the article instead be merged into Gob (band)[LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Delete" in this case would mean we thought the EP did not exist. It looks like a redirect to Gob (band), to me. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gob (band) - limited edition EP doesn't quite make it to the notability bar; so the redirect to the band's article is the proper action. B.Wind (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gob (band). There is little here to merge. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dildozer[edit]

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

Contested Prod

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article in question was one of the first EP's by a notable band. According to you, all articles must meet the basic criteria, and if we were going by the album only and NOT the band, then i geuss we should delete Nirvana's demo tape or the rolling stone's Five by Five. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - according to WP:MUSIC, all albums and songs - and therefore by implication singles - still have to meet basic WP:N criteria. It even states that "album articles with little more than a track listing may more appropriately merged....". I can't see anything in the article justifying notability for an article in its own right, so my vote is to merge it into the groups' article, and change this article to a redirect. Nirvana and the Rolling Stones are (now) established notable bands, but if this was 1964, the Rolling Stones article would be required to assert notability the same as any article for a new group. If Gob become as well-known as either of these, then sure, their albums will (possibly) deserve their own articles, and will hopefully have more in them that just a track listing, but until then, I don't believe they do. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per WP:MUSIC, little more than a tracklist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per My above suggestions. [The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful information into Gob (band) as the EP was a limited edition offering that didn't attract significant interest. B.Wind (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott DuBose[edit]

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

Fairly well-writtten article (except for the mangled tables at the bottom and the one-sentence intro), but it doesn't really say anything about his notability. He's got one self-released album and no chart singles whatsoever. Therefore, he seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salon "Comparaisons"[edit]

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

There don't seem to be any reliable sources for this movement. The "foundator" [sic] and most "organizors" [sic] seem to be primarily red links, as do most of the notable exhibitors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus. Not redirecting, as it is an implausible search term. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online general chemistry courses[edit]

Online general chemistry courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not much more than a guide to a small assortment of online chemistry courses. Wikiedia is not a guide. Original research as well. Contested prod. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural deprivation[edit]

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

Yet another OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denyse Berend[edit]

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

Interesting story, but it seems to be a WP:BLP1E case. She only got a brief flurry of news for her buying a Persian artifact, and seems to have gone back to being a "normal" person. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely even gets to WP:BLP1E significance, since the article/buzz is essentially about the artifact, not the individual. Could possibly be reconstructed by the original editor as an article about the case, or the artifact, but it certainly does not warrant a biography entry. Debate (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Illicit antiquities, which already links to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with an article with a more suitable title. The woman got huge media attention in Iran for a long period of time and the highest authorities in the government got involved in the case. That is enough to make her (or the case) notable. There are numerous cases in wikipedia like this: cases that got significant media attention and result in international crisis appear in wikipedia. Examples are the recent case about Dutch man who abused her daughter for several decades. The article also refers to the double standard of British court: putting French law at a higher status than the Iranian law. Sangak Talk 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A blatant case of WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --John (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environment Capitalism[edit]

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

Appears to be another OR Essay. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. And not a good one, either. MrPrada (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one of those end of the semester assignments we've been reading and suffering through for the last two weeks. Note to professors, they're paying you to teach your students basic research and writing, not us. Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, original research, POV, grammatically incorrect title, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --John (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrewDate[edit]

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

Unreferenced OR. Non-npov. Neologism. --EEMIV (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Cultural assimilation. As there's a lot of material to go over here, I'm simply going to do my best to ferret out the obvious OR and improperly-sourced material before adding the content to the cultural assimilation article. If anyone would like to volunteer to do additional cleanup once this is done, it'd be much appreciated. --jonny-mt 04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant assimilation[edit]

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

Appears to be an OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast food and inner city communities[edit]

Fast food and inner city communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be OR and an academic essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting read, but it's an essay laced with original research. (Based on my own experience, chicken franchises seem to be insanely popular in the inner city...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to violate WP:SYN. --Kinu t/c 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting essay, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it ([[WP::SYN]]). Aleta Sing 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a decent essay, but entirely original research and synthesis. I think there's also something rather non-neutral about claiming that "inner cities" have health problems. What exactly is the article defining as "inner city"? Making sweeping generalizations that don't even hold across the US (much less abroad) isn't really a good idea. Bfigura (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR.--Berig (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the sourced parts into Food desert which deals with the same issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fairly obvious original research. FWIW, "food desert" looks like a tendentious neologism as well, but there do seem to be some sources for the term. Public-healthism is a remarkably useful tool that allows the privileged and sheltered to turn their tastes into moralities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, this "business-related topics" assignment gets an A minus. Soon as the semester is over, stop worrying about what your dickweed teacher wants, and consider turning this topic into an encyclopedic article. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, original research, POV, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge per BOZ.  Sandstein  06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable aspect of D&D. Only sources seem to be a fansite; article is written in-universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as neologism. It is not a speedy, for recreation, as the previous article was completely different, as in even the word definition and attribution was different. So I see no need to salt for now. - Nabla (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beme[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism lacking references, even cohesiveness. --EEMIV (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see previous AfD; I've also applied CSD tag. Admin. can ascertain whether this is close enough to the previously deleted material to warrant speedy deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as a re-creation of an article previously deleted via a clear Delete consensus on a prior AFD. Beyond that, this is a neologism invented on a blog and is therefore not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. The previous AfD occurred in February 2007, more than a year before this article was started (and its author, Nicholasmayer12, has contributed only to this article and his userspace). I'm assuming good faith and suggesting that salting is not needed here as it would be biting a newbie. B.Wind (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted content. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hangon-- I am the author of this article and a legitimate newbie, and it was my impression that the previously deleted article defined beme as a meme spread by a blog, which is a completely different definition from the one I am presenting. KleenupKrew has mistakingly assumed that my article supports this definition and is a replication. It is not a second attempt at this definition and so does not qualify for Speedy delete. I am working to craft this article to meet the Wikipedia specs. The definition that I present was coined by the inventor/ entrepreneur of SERIUS satellite radio, Onstar, and a well- known biotech company. Dr. Rothblatt was also recently inducted into the American Philosophical Society. 5 non- profit foundations have been created whose core is this definition of the word Beme and it's release to the world took place in May of 06 at IEET/Stanford Conference on Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights, which was held at Stanford University-- it is a new term coined by a big thinker, in response to a rapidly changing culture. Nickolasmayer12 —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is lots of evidence on Google to suggest that this protologism is more commonly defined in two or three ways other than what the creator is suggesting, including "best evidence medical education" and the definition that was originally AfD'd. I suggest this would be more appropriate for Wiktionary unless reliable sources in sufficient quantity that have escaped my brief search can be provided. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable (and incoherent) neologism. Delete. I don't think it meets the speedy critera as a re-creation (it has quite different content from the deleted one); it might fit into other criteria: either nonsense, or promotional of a self-invented term. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on the notability of the former bar (so I, boldly, edited to turn the focus from the current store to the former bar) - Nabla (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Al's[edit]

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

Unreferenced with dubious claim to notability. Quick Google test yielded higher results for aquarium supplies than this club. --EEMIV (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, no independent sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are numerous references to Big Al's in popular culture, and it's clearly a notable SF landmark as it crops up in a wide variety of commentary as such (eg "just opposite Big Al's"). I don't have time right now to update the article (if I get a chance I will later), but searching Google books for "big al's" "San Francisco" comes up with several mentions. Google "Big Al's" "San Francisco" -gore -fish to get rid of Al Gore and seafood cuts down the irrelevant hits a bit more. If you want to be creative add a couple more exclusions (add a - before the term) to narrow even further. Debate (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a reference called "Striptease: The Untold History of the Girlie Show" which is a legitimate book. It suggests Big Al's was a notable part of the history of strip clubs, as well as adult entertainment in San Francisco. In addition to being the first bottomless club, it may have been the first club in the world with A) dancers with silicon implants or B) a mother/daughter act. Uh... well anyway, wacky firsts aside, this gets a lot of results on GN Archive and Google books. I have added one source to the article. I doubt the modern sex toy store is notable, but the 1960s club it traces its roots to seems to be. --Rividian (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the further explanation.DGG (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:DragonflySixtyseven (non-admin close). —BradV 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpart F[edit]

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

Appears to be an OR Essay, the refs are even hard coded as if the essay was copied from another location. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The topic itself is undoubtedly notable and deserves a WP entry. However, the article is written almost entirely as an OR essay, to the extent that it does not seem possible to even extract a definition of "Subpart F" from it. If someone knowledgeable about the subject can remove most of the current text, give a reasonable definition and a few references, the entry could kept as a stub. Otherwise, the current text does not appear to be salvageable. (Also there is a bit of a worry about possible copyvio here since the article seems to have been pasted from some other source). Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DiFrancesco[edit]

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

Substantial recreation of prod, still mirrored at [28]. Since this was a prod, its ineligible for G4. That said, the article is borderline uneyclopedic, and fails WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable staffer for an Assemblyman Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Article lists sources and does make a claim of notability, specifically the "youngest chairman" bit. This sounds odd, but I get a sense of deja vu that I can't place. TN‑X-Man 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "youngest elected X" is first of all very hard if not impossible to verify, and second tends to bea euphemism for "jut aboutto start becoming notable". This would if accepted give us one person for every possible minor office to be found, none of whom would be the least notable. DGG (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local politician, no broader notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the article and it can't be a vanity article, no onw wouel write an article to make himself look like such a failure. It must be an attack on one low-level politician by another.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Aleta. Non admin close. —BradV 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T (rapper)[edit]

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

Delete. I am unable to find anything that attests to this person's notability. I also can't find any information on the album or its songs.

I am also nominating the following related articles:

  • Delete (T (rapper) probably also falls under CSD A7): articles fail to establish notability, and a cursory search for the songs (with "rap" added to sharpen results) turned up absolutely nothing. nneonneo talk 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for the artist, no assertion of notability. With that considered, his album, and especially his songs are definitely not notable: delete for them as well. I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm discounting most "delete" comments made before Simon Speed's expansion and sourcing of the article, as they focused on the lack of reliable sources for (and therefore also notability of) the topic. Most of these comments would probably not have been made after the edits to the article.  Sandstein  06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play party (BDSM)[edit]

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

The whole article is basically an explanation of a term called a "play party". Is it necessary to have a two sentence article describing an almost self-explanatory topic? This is obviously not notable enough for its own article. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Nominator made request of withdrawal of this nomination below and voted "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This obviously does not meet WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. At best it has coverage in one source, but it's really just half a page. The last AFD produced more in the way of promises of sources than actual sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:OR as well. Grsztalk 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as basically a dictionary definition. Aleta Sing 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to Keep as per expansion and addition of reliable sources. Well done, Simonxag, Aleta Sing 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just looked at the talk page and history of the article. It seems that there is a content and sourcing debate happening. The article was a lot longer than the two sentences it is now, but mostly unsourced. Also, the last AfD closed just on the 3rd of May. Aleta Sing 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial subject that clearly fails WP:N. Nothing warrants a separate article about this. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - Although I would !vote delete on the article in its current condition, I do not think that it is reasonable to renominate an article less than a week after a previous AfD has closed. Obviously consensus can change, and the previous AfD closed without consensus being reached, but I don't think particularly want to encourage repeated nominations until an article is kept or deleted. I am not accusing the current nominator of this behavior, rather, this is a general policy argument. Xymmax (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Books are more likely to be the multiple reliable sources required here, and presumably there are a great many books about BDSM. --Eastmain (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hypothetical argument not based on the verifiable evidence that is actually presented here. Only one book is cited in the article itself and it is not clear from the citation that the book even mentions the "Play party". Even if it does, the context is not clear either and there is no indication that the concept itself is notable, as required by WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book does, but it mentions play party for half a page. You can find it on Google Books. At any rate, claims that this is "presumably" mentioned in some books somewhere is a very weak argument... you could say anything is mentioned in some book somewhere, it doesn't mean much without proof. --Rividian (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dict def. However, it is highly inappropriate to renominate an article so soon after the last AfD. DCEdwards1966 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Article has been stripped down to 2 directly sourced facts. A number of websites give further information, but the deleter Rividian has made it clear that any word not directly referenced to a printed source will be deleted. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it's a dictionary entry at best; one discussion in a book on kinky sex doesn't make a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are unreliable. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at this point, the article was re-edited by Simon Speed. -- The Anome

  • Comment I have re-edited the article. It is substantially expanded and has 5 reliable sources with inline citations. The reasons given for deletion clearly no longer apply. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now appears to be adequately sourced. -- The Anome (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks to be a notable topic in the BDSM community, is a decent start to an article, is in the middle of a content dispute, and this re-nomination is way too soon. --Alynna (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At this point, even I, being the nominator of the second AfD, am starting to lean toward the keep side. I think maybe I nominated this article prematurely. Sorry about that. Now it seems to have established its notability and we are starting to see more sources. In this stage, deletion is no longer the resolution, improvement is. Are there any objections? — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef and trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are reliable enough for the purpose. And it is a discussion of the subject, not a dicdef. DGG (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per nom (!). AfD is not the place to ask for article clean up. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for AFD. Discussion of common term within subculture, and is now backed up by five sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For this very common BDSM function, this was a case for improvement and expansion tags, not deletion, especially as the article was under AfD a week ago. This happenstime and time again. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right, it happens time and time again. "It" in this context being "keep and improve" followed by no improvement. If the improvements this time round had been made then, no renomination would have occurred. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improved? The content has changed little. With 1 exception which I had deleted) it always matched what you found googling umpteen sites. What has changed is the number of accademic & printed sources and that every phrase is referenced to these. Any phrase not so referenced was being deleted citing verifiability. Something you find elsewhere in Wikipedia? Really? Most of those wanting to delete here have acted in good faith, but none have actually done anything to improve the article. I have acted in an attempt to stop the article being censored. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Simon, adding those references is a big improvement to the article! Aleta Sing 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only in making the article harder to censor. The verifiability principle is there to help clear out rubbish & resolve POV disputes. It has been abused here to break the not-censored principle. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I currently trying to save an article about a stip club/fetish store from another AFD if I'm so interested in censoring sex articles? I guess I'm interested in stopping an article from providing questionable legal and safety advice, as the Play party article did a week ago, and asking for references seems to have fixed that. Accusations that I'm just trying to delete this article because it's about sex are a classic contradiction of WP:AGF, rude, and incorrect; they're based on assuming the worst of me rather than looking at anything I'm actually doing and saying. --Rividian (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, making it "harder to censor" is only one way it improved the article. While it is not required that every statement in an article be cited, an article with every statement cited to a reliable source is definitely better than the exact same text without those citations. Aleta Sing 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page seems to be sourced in a number of independent hard-sources. Personally, I see no merit in the claims that this page fails to meet the notability criterion. The claims that this page is too similar to a dictionary definition do not warrant deleting the page--they warrant expanding it. I also want to remark that the people suggesting the deletion and deleting a lot of the prose might first take a look at the cited sources before making bold claims that this page is not adequately sourced. Cazort (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. Like, come on, you prudes! JeanLatore (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly trivial. Lighthead þ 02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the subject of secondary sources. Besides the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, is there any other reason you feel this should be deleted? --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The has not been "the subject of secondary sources". It's been mentioned 1-2 times in 5 sources... none of them are even close to being written about play parties. I do not believe this meets WP:N or WP:NEO, which require sources about the topic, rather than ones that mention the topic once or twice, but it's a lot closer now than the first AFD and it's no longer such a problematic article. --Rividian (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about this. And I'm pretty sure now that there must be more of these. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a start. But is the "Australian BDSM Information Site" a reliable source? I'm just thinking about this as I would any other questionable article. Say there was an article on some World of Warcraft term, a lot of people wouldn't really make much of a fan-written essay about the term if the only publisher was a WoW fansite. But here we have an enthusiast-written, enthusiast-published article, just on a different subject... is it really that different than the Warcraft example? --Rividian (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic where most of the sources will be books. The Washington Post just isn't going to write a lot of stories on this topic. Google Books shows an abundance of coverage on BDSM parties, and these are just the ones scanned to G-books. BDSM is a big culture and the parties are a major component of that. --Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just said that I realize there is evidence of passing mentions of this topic, so links to more passing mentions (as picked up by a Google books search) doesn't really tell me anything new. Traditional sources do write about sexual topics that are of genuine importance, such as [[sexual fetishism for example, but not every term people in some scene happen to like is going to be all that important. --Rividian (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many (but not all) listed there are more than "passing mentions" and we are only able to see samples of these books. While i don't have access to the entire books, there is indication that many of the books go into more detail and perhaps even have entire chapters dedicated to BDSM parties. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It documents a real activity, and I can see no reason it should be removed. A quick google finds hundreds of thousands of pages on bdsm play parties, clubs organizing same, etc. Bushytails (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstaining from giving my opinion. However, as linked above, this article was nominated for deletion by User:Rividian previously, and I closed it as "No consensus". What has not been mentioned, as near as I can tell, is that my close of the debate was contested in WP:DRV, by Rividian, located here, later to be closed by Rividian himself when he saw this (premature} AfD. The consensus at the DRV discussion was leaning very strongly towards "Endorse closure", despite Rividian's wrong assertions in his DRV closing statement ("...which is what consensus for this DRV was anyway..") otherwise. This is a premature AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination since this was just here and deletion review and these facts were not mentioned in the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Whether or not it was a bad nom the subject is certainly notable with books, seminars and workshops devoted to the subject. Traditionally an underground phenomena within LGBT, kink and leather communities BDSM play parties have gone mainstream and plenty of reliable sources can be found to support the subject. Banjeboi 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angels & Demons. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Vetra[edit]

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

really short biography, the one included in the book's page should be enough MakE (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete article. I have no problem with a redirect being set up to somewhere, perhaps Depth of field? I'm not a subject expert, I'll leave that to the discretion of someone else if they feel it is a plausible search term. Consensus here is that it's not a stand alone article though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject distance[edit]

Subject distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Essentially a dictionary item, and not even a well-defined one at that. The "subject distance" or "object distance" or "focus distance" are various terms sometimes used in optics and photography, but don't really rate an article, as they are just a measurement in some setup. The Exif field SubjectDistance can be covered in the Exif article; it's seldom used anyway. Nothing here is notable, nor even sourced. Take it to wictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hear you, Dicklyon, but I think this topic deserved to be covered somewhere, perhaps in photographic lens. I've told you before, but for the longest time I was baffled by the term "focal length" because at its face, it sounds like it should mean what subject distance means. I'll move this definition into photographic lens unless you can think of a better place for it. Cheers. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to define "subject distance" in any article where the concept comes up; and to define "focal length" when needed, to prevent such confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere or transfer to Wiktionary as I suggested when I removed the deletion proposal. Fg2 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (possibly into photographic lens) and transfer to Wiktionary. It's a dictionary definition and I don't see how you can make this encyclopedic. Merenta (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made sure it's defined in the one place where it is used (in depth of field); it's not such a standard term that it should appear in a glossary. In fact, a quick search shows that it is not consistently used as defined in these articles (see this book in particular). Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkpatrick[edit]

Robert Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Winning two Emmy Awards would be sufficient to establish notability; however, this does not appear to be true.  Frank  |  talk  02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete - I can't find evidence of the awards either. Was just wondering though, the editor proposing AfD is the same one who actually started the article some 3.5 years ago. S/he and an apparent IP alter ego seem to be repeatedly blanking the page. Just wondering what the story is there. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be his IMDB page; no awards listed there either.  Frank  |  talk  02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The guy did win the Emmys, as claimed, but they are "Regional Emmys". I have no familiarity whatsoever with the award, but if the only basis to delete is WP:HOAX, its not—that was also very easy to verify, not sure why there was difficulty above. However if regional emmies fail WP:BIO, then you could make a case to delete. MrPrada (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that's a good find. Do we have anything to connect that regional Emmy to this Robert Kirkpatrick, and do we have an opinion as to notability of such an award? I've never heard of it before but that doesn't mean it's not notable.  Frank  |  talk  09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a localism. Furthermore, it's a common name. Heck, I had a professor who published books who had that name, and I'm sure he wasn't the only one. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to indicate notability. The Emmy awards appear to be regional and therefore not enough to establish notability. Being a contestant on Jeapordy is even less noteworthy. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni kapadia[edit]

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

Article is a test, and has also been blanked by author. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Yang[edit]

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

Yang appears to be barely notable at best, and the article is being used to slander her. I don't generally think we should delete based upon ill-use of an article, but I don't see much here to justify keeping the article either. Aleta Sing 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hottest blogger?" Puh-leaaaase....delete.  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think sockpuppetry is involved in the slander directed at Yang. I have opened an SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Affinity12. Aleta Sing 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sockpuppetry or not, there is no citation from a reputable source to indicate Notability. --Work permit (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nom. Just in case my position was not clear, I don't think the subject is notable enough to keep. Aleta Sing 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. MrPrada (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The subject appears to have been featured on the cover of the Singapore editions of Maxim (magazine) and FHM which suggests that she is a celebrity of some kind in her home country. However, I can't find many reliable sources about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify to ensure compliance with the OB marker that is BLP. I notice that all the delete !voters are not Singaporeans. Dunno den dun kaypoh lor! Blogging is a phenomenon that has become a part of Singaporean culture. Successful Singaporean bloggers (like Dawn, Xiaxue and mrbrown) are national celebrities who receive considerable press coverage. They even have sponsors and often become columnists for local newspapers and magazines! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide links to some of this "considerable press coverage" (even if it's not in English)? That would go a long way toward satisfying the notability question. Aleta Sing 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not know as much about Dawn as I do about mrbrown or Xiaxue. However, I remember (and confirmed through a quick Google search) that she is a STOMP Star Blogger (Xiaxue also used to be one). Perhaps someone with access to a newspaper archive service (such as Factiva) could search the database for "Dawn Yang" (and "Dawn Yeo")? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We non-Singaporeans have heard of blogging too, but it's hard to see how this blogger's work amounts to anything more than self-publishing, which is not a reliable source. Absent independent coverage, notability is still not established. Furthermore, if you check the blog page, you can almost make a case for WP:CSD#G11, except that it's an external page. Finally, I'm not sure I agree that coverage in a language other than English would merit this article's inclusion in the English version of Wikipedia anyway. (Is there a policy on this point?)  Frank  |  talk  17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It doesn't specify in English, although that certainly makes verification easier (although I don't think English is required for that either). Aleta Sing 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete all, except Russell Klika, for now. A strong argument with new sources has been put together here by User:AuthorAuthor to give the Klika article a chance to breathe. The rest are being deleted per consensus as non-notable vanity pieces being used to promote a non-notable exhibit. No prejudice against a renomination of the Klika article if it is not sourced properly/improved. I feel enough of a notability argument has been established for now for Klika that his BIO warrants its own discussion instead of being included in a bundled AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Jensen[edit]

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

This article was created as promotion by SPA who created an article on an upcoming photographic exhibition called Eye of the Storm: War through the Lens of American Combat Photographers. The subject of this article is the curator of the exhibition. The SPA also created articles on each and every one of the photographers in the exhibition, some of which have been deleted as copyvios and are not listed here. The article on the exhibition has also been deleted under WP:CSD#G11.

None of these articles can stand on their own notability. The photographers have received decorations, but we don't have articles on each serviceman or servicewoman who is awarded the Joint Services Commendation Medal or the Combat Action Ribbon. Further, photographers with photos published in USA Today or Newsweek are not automatically notable because of publication in a newspaper or magazine. The articles say "featured in (publication)", which gives the impression of... well, a feature, on their work. No evidence of features is shown, only a photo credit or two in those publications.

If this isn't the definition of promotion or advertising, I don't know what is. The articles are here only to promote this person and the exhibition. Unless evidence of notability can be found elsewhere, all should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are:

Cherie Thurlby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Watkins (Navy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samuel Corum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mike Pryor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremy Lock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andy Dunaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russell Klika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted once under WP:CSD#G12, then recreated by a different editor in the same format. See note/question below re: Russell Klika possible deletion
Jacob Bailey (Air Force) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted once under WP:CSD#G12
Stacy Pearsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted once under WP:CSD#G12

Finally, the first Dane Jensen AFD was for a different Dane Jensen, not related to this person. KrakatoaKatie 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I created the new page for Russell Klika and did not use an old format. I tried to include the facts of his career. I know of his photos as a combat photographer. I wasn't aware there was an issue with the Eye of the Storm gallery show, otherwise I wouldn't have included that part. It can be removed from the article. I guess I don't understand the reasoning for deleting a page about a well-known, notable combat photographer? Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there separate pages for each of the AfDs for the articles listed above? For some reason, each of the links in the individual articles seem to link back to this page. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for similarly situated articles to be placed in a group nomination. That seems to be the case here. --Maxamegalon2000 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the article, Jensen does not meet the Notability standard for Creative Professionals. Handling the work of significant artists does not, in itself, merit notability. The article does not demonstrate esteem by peers, or that his work is a significant monument. Perhaps his work on Eye of the Storm will make his reputation, but the article does not show that this reputation is already established. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and added notation on Klika page that he is a 1988 alumnus (and the first military photographer selected to attend) of the Eddie Adams workshop, which is considered a prestigious workshop for top photographers early in their careers.AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, Dane Jensen as lacking sufficient notability for an article, and the others as non-notable military combat photographers. Note that Dane Jensen has previously been deleted via an AFD, and if this is the same material and the same Dane Jensen, speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot, for the reasons given above. As for Ethicoaestheticist's defense of Jeremy Lock, Ethicoaestheticist gives a pertinent link, but my interest quickly wanes when I read within it: The Department of Defense Visual Information Awards Program annually picks a Military Photographer of the Year, Videographer of the Year, and Graphic Artist of the Year in a competition held at the Defense Information School at Fort Meade, MD -- so it's not as if Lock has won some notable photographic or journalistic award; instead, his school says he's top of the class. I wish him and the others well; some day they may merit articles, but not yet. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider deleting Russell Klika; he has won dozens of notable journalism awards, including from the Society of Professional Journalists. I'll get the citations and post them.AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't realized that there were that many notable journalism awards to be won. Don't worry about dozens, plural, or even a single dozen. Can you (or somebody) name and provide evidence for just half a dozen? Or anything similar? He does seem to have had one exhibition in a university. (Not a university I'd ever heard of, but that's probably my fault.) Any other solo exhibitions? Any substantial publications (e.g. books)? Any critical commentary? Until I see signs of this, I think Klika's article should go along with the others. Of course he may later fulfill his promise, whereupon he'd be welcome to an article: deletion now doesn't mean autodeletion of a more substantive article later. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He had a one-man show at Point Park University, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Here's a link to the article about it: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/events/s_551089.html Here's an article about his show and lecture at Slippery Rock University in the school's newspaper: http://media.www.theonlinerocket.com/media/storage/paper601/news/2008/02/08/News/War-Pictures.Captured.By.Visual.Artist-3196703.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorAuthor (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's something there, but it's very thin. The fact that the photos move within Point Park University (from hall to library) suggests to me that it was a small and minor show. Was there no other press coverage of either of these? How about some photo stories (and not just separate photos) by Klika? Inclusion in the permanent collection of some gallery or other? Some of those notable journalism awards? -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In 1992, he won Best of Show out of more than a thousand submissions from the San Diego Press Club's annual journalism contest. I'll get the documentation (need to pull it from Lexis-Nexis). He was chosen to be included in the Art of Photography Show in San Diego: http://www.artofphotographyshow.com/credits.html

http://jpgmag.com/blog/2008/03/art_of_photography_contest_res_1.html Also, his photos are on display in JPG magazine. He was a combat photojournalist (not just a photographer) in Iraq, writing articles and taking photos. I can post links of some of those articles on the Russell Klika page.AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect per consensus. No prejudice against un-redirecting when more is known/movie airs,etc. Keeping history intact for that purpose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly Saves TV[edit]

ICarly Saves TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't establish notability or give any sourcing. This being a television related AfD I expect a 'keep' decision but would like a third party opinion on it. treelo talk 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to iCarly. Isn't sufficient as a stand alone per crystal ball.SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because it is known that the movie will air and its release date, which is given in the article. Notable TV movie Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to iCarly. No need for a separate article. Aleta Sing 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No information to merge, as this is crystal ball stuff. All it says is that it's a movie with an air date and who is acting in it. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as has already been done by the article's creator. The movie hasn't aired, and there is no reason for it to be separate from the main article unless/until it airs and there becomes too much content to keep it in the main. As is, it looks like it is just an extended episode, which are normally covered in the series article in the Media information section. Collectonian (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as above. Agree. Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iCarly#TV Movie. There's not much out there to flesh this out to a fully-fledged article yet. B.Wind (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Editors might consider adding any notable information to the article on the book in which it appears. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watercraft in A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

Watercraft in A Series of Unfortunate Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Series of Unfortunate Events articles with no notability or referencing. As such, it is pure repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Ocean locations[edit]

List of Star Ocean locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the setting and plot sections of the Star Ocean game articles. As such, it is repetitive and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the brief main article. JJL (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a merge into Star Ocean (series) would be more appropriate. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I suppose, though I do think this article has potential in the long term. As the creator of this article from "back in the day," this article was meant to be a summary style break of long sections in the main articles (such as Star Ocean 3) to prevent clutter. While the standards are now higher for doing this, I do believe that this article could eventually stand on its own once more sources were found (likely with many of them in Japanese, unfortunately). This would be a long process, though, so merging back to the Star Ocean (series) article for now would be fair. SnowFire (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a game, not a TV show or book series, and so is gameguide AND plot, both NOT. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There is no point in merging, this is an indiscriminate list of non-notable locations. The plot sections in each Star Ocean article already explains what's important to explain. Mentioning every single location and planet of the series' universe is not appropriate. Kariteh (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable fancruft.--Berig (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fancruft. If people play the game, they know where the game is. If they don't, they don't care. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating WP:GAMETRIVIA. This is just non-notable information that you'd find in a game guide. The main star ocean article already gives an encyclopedic overview. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This borders on WP:NOT#GUIDE, but even if one ignores that, the article is still entirely plot summary with no real-world significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verifiable). A list is not a how to, which is what the gameguide guideline cautions against. Trivia is encyclopedic. Subject is consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Ocean. "cruft" is nevera valid argument to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peel District School Board. (All info has been merged already). Fabrictramp (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Underhill Public School[edit]

Ray Underhill Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No statement of importance, no evidence of sources on Google News Archive or Google Books, very little on a vanilla google web search [30]. Does not seem notable. Rividian (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could, but why? I don't see any reason that I should do so. Merge as noted above to the district article, as is usually done with such articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an admin could close it early as a merge... if there's already a general consensus for such action. I didn't mean to propose a needless AFD. --Rividian (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The correct action if a user removes a speedy tag from an article they created is to warn them with {{drmspeedy-n|page name}} and re-add the tag. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Silvey[edit]

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

Procedural nom as CSD tags are being removed from page. B-movie actress that has only had minor roles. Fails notability guidelines as she has not had any significant roles and she has no cult following as far as I can tell. ThanksGtstrickyTalk or C 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) GtstrickyTalk or C 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn based on IMDb [31] and web search. JJL (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant roles or media coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to have had any significant roles or non-trivial coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. One appearance in a B-move does not make an actress notable.--Berig (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've actually seen Xtro, and her role is really brief, the character isn't even given a name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For actress, read 'extra'. In minor films. Sorry, but fails WP:BIO big time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, based on imdb. — Wenli (reply here) 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (TA)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Looks like a nonsense, possibly BJAON article (especially the second sentence of the lead). Only source is given an online forum. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if accurate, the notion is not notable.--Berig (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable concept, likely a silly hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Black Monday, Batman, Delete DCEdwards1966 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in the article providing a tentative source for this concept has been recently updated. Unfortunately, the current alleged source is a blog posting about the deletion debate, not a reliable source for the usage of the term. (Babelfish-translated page here) When I attempted to google-search the term, I came up empty. Nor is it in any of my finance texts. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't limited to the Netherlands -- the chart discussed here was being touted by a guy who kept showing it on CNBC, and there are a few blogs that discuss that one specifically. I've heard the term and seen examples before, not always in relationship to this particular interpretation, but it doesn't seem to be notable per reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For lack of reliable sources. Does provide interesting pic though... RC-0722 247.5/1 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny but not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like an interesting hoax, but it might be an article that would have been kept if there were even one source for the claims. Imagine if this were true! You would know exactly when you needed to sell on the Netherlands Stock Exchange. "Royal Dutch Shell hit its second spike in prices, a sure sign that the price is about to...'batman'. Panic is reported in Amsterdam...and Gotham City." Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I actually don't believe that this is a hoax. I know people who really believe that stocks show this pattern. People believe lots of silly things about stocks. Those beliefs are the basis of most technical analysis. They are wrong (most easily demonstrated by the fact that they're not rich) but they are sincere in their beliefs. My concern with this article has always been an inability to reliably source the use of the word "Batman" to the belief about this pattern and an inability to show that this particular belief is any more notable than the other technical analysis theories. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nor do I think this is a hoax, anymore than any other stock theory is a hoax. But stock theories are a dime a dozen. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably not a hoax but not notable. Might be better suited in Wiktionary, although that may be a stretch, too. Merenta (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. In addition to the arguments raised by the delete comments below, which touch on the guidelines as set out by WP:LIST, as an administrator I have additional concerns about the way in which this list is being compiled--getting other authors to write about themselves is the very essence of self-promotion. That being said, as an editor I believe that a similar list could potentially be viable, and so I will gladly provide the deleted content for userfication per request on my talk page. --jonny-mt 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of erotic romance authors[edit]

List of erotic romance authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedied, removed by article creator, prodded (by me) which removed again by article's creator, list includes 2 bluelinks, one to the article's creator (and is subject to a prod at present) and the other blue link is to an actress not a writer. Vanity list Richhoncho (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity list indeed, mostly red links and no set criteria. Is writing one dirty novel enough to make it here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Bobby, I've published 13 books, three by one of the largest publishers in the U.S.(St. Martin's Press) and two more contracted with them. I would think that, as a representative of Wikipedia, it is inappropriate of you to attempt to diminish anyone's work by using derogatory terms such as "dirty book", especially with respect to a body of work as popular in current culture as erotic romance.ElizabethBC (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a vanity arbitrarily assembled list whose composition also has a wiff of OR. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Erotic romance is a relatively new subgenre of romance and is growing rapidly in popularity. Most major publishers (including St. Martin's Press. Berkley Books, Avon (publishers)) are publishing these books. It’s not clear to me why it is not considered appropriate for Wikipedia while other more obscure genres are. The fact that one author was linked to an actress was an error, but I did include a citation which showed the author’s profile page on the Romantic Times Bookreviews magazine, the major source of book reviews in the romance industry. I have added two new authors to the list who are both bestselling authors and have bio pages in Wikipedia. Since this is a list, it will take time to fill it out, but I am adding authors as I have time and I will be letting others in the industry know so the list can build more quickly. ElizabethBC (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Romantic fiction comprises more than 50% of mass market sales in today's market, and of that 50% sales figure, erotic romance encompasses a large percentage of mass market number. The romance authors in the list are attempting to connect the Romance Wikipedia with the main Wikipedia to provide easy access to romance readers who are seeking information on author bios, awards, back lists and series title information who might not otherwise be familiar with Romance Wiki, but are familiar with the main Wikipedia. The comment referring to a "dirty book" indicates a lack of understanding on the part of the poster in terms of the use of sex in a romantic fictional work. Despite the continued misunderstanding of some, romance is a strong force in the publishing industry and erotic romance is a significant part of the romance genre. We will work to have an article developed that defines erotic romance vs. erotica that the author list can connect too. As Ms. Carew indicated, the list and articles take time to develop as do many articles found on Wikipedia.Kscearce (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a list, which was created by one person to increase their own internet profile, there is no associated article to go with the list, there are a number of either unreferenced articles, Erotic romance novels, or turned into a redirect, Erotic romance, Erotic fiction, or even plain redlinks Erotic Romance. At no point have the claims made that 25% of sales are "erotic romance" been substantiated by a verifiable link. I am prepared to change my mind, but I'd like to see an associated article which is referenced - Give us the facts and not the spamlinks and I would be happy to change my mind. Especially as I know there are quite a few writers of this genre (whatever its correct title is) at WP --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • CommentI created a stand alone article called Erotic Romance, which varies from the definition listed in the main Romance genre article. I will add a link to RWA's website with the appropriate stats for the article and will edit the list to reflect both the erotic romance article, the romance article and the stats. Please note that the link to the stats reference dollar amounts and percentages for the year 2006. This is due to the delays in number gathering from major NY houses. ePublishing is generally a lot quicker than NY publisher by the very nature of the business model. Also, my reference to 50% is based on data earlier than 2006. I should not have used that number. However, the 2006 numbers show that in the US romance outsells all categories with the exception of Religion/Inspirational books. While the 2006 numbers do not accurately reflect the erotic romance subgenre, it's still quite new in terms of NY imprints and publication. It's only been since 2005 that NY actually actively pursued erotic romance as a viable subgenre, which evolved from ePublishing. This is the link to the stats number that I'll include in the article.

http://www.rwanational.org/cs/the_romance_genre/romance_literature_statistics Please bear with me as my writing ability far exceeds my understanding of how things work here on wiki. We (Opal and I) are still working on getting authors to fill out a bio and to add their name to the list. I've been able to herd cats better than writers who are always on deadline.Kscearce (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Adding the names of people who are not notable enough to have a WP article does not make this a stand alone list. Nor does adding the external links at the bottom, please see WP:SPAM. Furthermore, the statistics from the link are not the same figures as you gave earlier --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_9&oldid=1081072700"