Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 19

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers (website)

[edit]
The Numbers (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. Page has no citations to anything other than the website itself, Google search of related terms reveals only two results. Both are from the official website. No indication of discussion in notable, reliable third-party publications. Gromlakh (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:N and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Wood

[edit]
Melanie Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NUMEROUS people on the talk page have pointed out this woman is NOT NOTABLE. The only reason this is still here is because User: C S has made it his personal crusade to defend this page. Johnnygood (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. However, I would be open to persuasion if it could be shown that she was a notable mathematician rather than just a promising one. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably notable within the world of competitive mathematics (I never knew such a thing existed, but that's what we're here for) for her various prizes and fellowships; would definitely pass WP:BIO if she were (mutatis mutandis) an athlete or musician. Tevildo (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Non mathematics people don't understand that MathCounts, International Mathematical Olympiad, and the Putnam Competition are extremely difficult tests for the respective groups of test takers. To have done well in all three is extremely notable. It's not just a sign of a promising career. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:43 2008 January 20 (UTC)
Johnnygood isn't a sock puppet account, is it? The only contributions were to nominate Melanie Wood for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JANJAN

[edit]
JANJAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable for inclusion. WordMachine (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Riviera (Beijing)

[edit]
Beijing Riviera (Beijing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. I Poeloq (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

[edit]
Riverside Garden (Shenyang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<A road like [[Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey? I think our differences lie mostly in believing Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about important things versus believing Wikipedia to be the "sum of all knowledge". I see nothing wrong with articles about major roads that have houses, offices and shops. It is verifiable and useful. "Notable" is just shorthand for verifiable and useful, in my opinion. And the facts in our article on Riverside Garden are verifiable and useful. A foreigner being told of a meeting at Riverside Garden can now look it up and see what "Riverside Garden" is. We are better than Google. We make the internet not suck. What is the most useful thing we can do with regard to this article for a reader who types "Riverside Garden" into Wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vision for Wikipedia is nice, but it isn't intended that way. You might want to check Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and other related areas of WP:NOT where it clearly states that we don't intend to be a guidebook, directory or a help in conducting business. That's the way it is. Poeloq (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. I think it plain that Wikipedia is meant to have articles on all named and verifiable communities of 1000 or more units. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we agree to disagree :) . Let's see what other editors have to say. Poeloq (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, everything that has a verifiable existence should have an article. WP:NOT is wrong. Remember, "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive--we are not obligated to care what it says. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!') 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, you've just used one of the things listed over at WP:ATA, namely Wikipedia should be about everything. Also pointing out that policy can be ignored, is also not a valid argument in an AfD discussion. Poeloq (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's just my point. It is my position that Wikipedia SHOULD be about everything; thus, my argument is perfectly valid. And yes, policy can and should be ignored. All it is is a description of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past. It is not a set of rules that must be followed in the future. The choice of the word "policy" as the appellation was unfortunate, and it has confused many a well-meaning user. But, the fact of the matter is that on Wikipedia, policy is not prescriptive and there is no obligation to "follow" it simply because "it's policy". You do what's right, whether it accords with policy or not. So don't argue based on policy--argue based on what's right for the project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the link I quoted? I know that policy can and should at times be ignored. However, in an AfD discussion there are certain things that need to be quoted and used to base a decission on, otherwise we could just abolish AfD all together - which I am sure you would favor. Poeloq (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it many times. It's irrelevant. All it is is a list some people put together that amounts to "I don't agree with these arguments, so I've decided you shouldn't use them." That's all it is. And I'm not talking about "ignoring policy"--because there is nothing to ignore in the first place! The word "policy" has a different meaning on Wikipedia than it does in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, actions follow policy: if they don't, then people should change their actions so they do follow policy. However, on Wikipedia, policy follows actions. If actions are not in line with "policy", then, then "policy" needs to be changed to reflect that fact. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- great points above. I feel it is right to keep this article. The place exists, the article's useful and helpful, can be improved to be more so, and why not? SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In what way is the article useful? And there are a lot of things that exist but don't facilitate an own article. BTW, don't be confused by the name: this is not a park or area of town. Poeloq (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a street directory. Whether we should have articles for every neighborhood in Newark (and Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey is about a neighborhood, not the eponymous street) is another question, best decided at another AfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generic subdivision; little better than spam or advertising. Gamaliel (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neighborhood, certainly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been demonstrated, despite efforts to find mentions in various listings and forum threads. --Stormie (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a notable development in China - that one where the houses and towns imitate western-style architecture and layout. You would think you were in a suburb in London or Paris or the US, except it is for rich people in China instead. Can anyone remember that one? I've tried to find an article on it and failed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass the bar for neighborhoods. Likely fails WP:RS. Almost every neighborhood has news coverage but that does not mean that they are all notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1000 units - Tiny villages in UK/Ireland are deemed noteworthy. A larger community in a far off place (to me) must also be noteworthy. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented in the article are not reliable, and we need to see some reason why this development project is notable. We need this standard for gated communities / housing subdivisions, because there is a major potential for advertising abuse here. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, if you have a problem with the sources given, the solution is not to delete but rather to find better sources. Second, as I have explained several times here, notability is irrelevant. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kurt, we all know your radical opinion on deletion and consensus. This is why your RfA failed back in 2005. Consesus in the communuty is that notability is relevant. Secondly, other/reliable sources on this subject are hard to find. I did a search in Chinese, however could only really find promotional information and press releases plus the odd rental offer. Poeloq (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Kurt, lack of adequate sourcing is a good reason to delete: see WP:DEL#REASON. If there is good reliable information out there, the article can stay. But none has been shown and it seems highly unlikely to. If you want to dispute that you're going to need to find some good sources. Mangojuicetalk 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really, people. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corporal, that's not too useful. Do you mind elaborating on your opinion on why you think it should be deleted? Poeloq (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. It strikes me as utterly uninteresting and irrelevant to anyone who does not live within 100 yards of it, and lacks any source suggesting that it is any more interesting than the next community 100 yards in the other way. Its entry is largely defended on the grounds that the subject exists, and under that criterion I won't support it until the Wiki has an independently-authored article on my shoe. It is pretty much inconceivable that it could perform any role which would make an entry on it useful to a reader, researcher, or seeker of knowledge, and anyone who is curious about where it is - perhaps hankering for some root beer, or Tostitos - would be far better served by a map. Or, in the shorter version - really, people. Delete. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RealCycle Network

[edit]
The RealCycle Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article consists of a number of local Yahoo! Groups (web forums) founded half a year ago. No independent sources, notability not established. High on a tree (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, especially to the worldwide Wikipedia audience. Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal Administration

[edit]
Herbal Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic. Possible candidate for transwikification, though I'm not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udo's Choice Food Pyramids

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Udo's Choice Food Pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable quackery. Delete Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the nomination statement says "quackery", definitions of which include the concepts of fraud, dishonesty, pretending to be a doctor, ignoring scientific findings etc. I do not believe that Udo Erasmus has done any of that, and no evidence of such has been presented either here or in the articles about him; in fact, he cites scientific findings in his book. Some of his ideas may be unproven or partially unproven; others are established scientific fact; but discussing speculative or (as-yet-)unproven ideas does not constitute fraud. The nomination itself could perhaps be considered a BLP violation. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHEMA Bible Training Center

[edit]
RHEMA Bible Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very nicely written advertisement, but an advertisement nonetheless. The only source cited in this article which is not from the organisation's own website, is on the site of the designer of the new basketball court - and as such is not properly independent. I Googled a bit but found only more of the same: uncritical puffery based presumably on press releases, comments from alumni and the like. One namecheck in Google News, and that's ab out it. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD is not an edit-on-demand service. Merge does not require WP:AFD, it just requires WP:EDIT. It is not very fair to direct the closing admin to select from several possible targets recommended and to decide what content in such a long article should be merged. Closing administrators are ideally not very familiar with the subject of the article, and interested editors should not tell an admin close this and now go edit it in this way. Be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself and then say merge already done, redirect this to target-x. JERRY talk contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few respected editors have taken offense at my comment above. I did not intend to offend anybody, and I don't think I said anything inherantly uncivil; but all I wanted to say is please do not add more "Merge per aboves", as the merge recommendations are incomplete in that they do not say WHAT to WHERE. Please be specific, and if you are inclined; do the bold thing. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd be willing to share a little more on this? I am very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject. I am all ears, mon ami. JERRY talk contribs 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on appropriate talk page. Tevildo (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with that, in that the place clearly fails WP:ORG due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Then don't delete it, Guy, fix it. As Peterkingiron observed, this place is very notable in charismatic circles, which make up a very large segment of the U.S. population. Plus their classes are transferable to accredited schools, so they are notable in and of themselves, not just as part of some other person, place or thing. I recommend you at least try to find those independent sources - I guarantee they're out there. Goo2you (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shaloob

[edit]
Bob Shaloob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. No Google hits other than this very article. Article says he has gained significant media attention for his plan to socialize the American Health Care System. Surely Google would return said "significant media attention" but unfortunately, Google does not. Plus, I live in Mississippi and have never heard of this guy. ALLSTAR echo 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briglin

[edit]
Briglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously tagged for speedy deletion for notability concerns. However, it does seem to have been written about and may claim notability. Procedural nom. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I Trokia Pottery, Poole Pottery are listed, why not Briglin Pottery, they are very similar except Briglin seems to have been lost in the record books and there is very little information anywhere to be found about the pottery which closed in 1990 appart from AA's book. Wikipedia is exactly the right place to list inforamtion about Briglin. please list it here. BR alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy8888 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooks (actor)

[edit]
Will Brooks (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable third party sources to verify notability. Nv8200p talk 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Only one !vote please. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result was speedy redirect, nom withdrawn non-admin closure--Lenticel (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgiest, the movie (criticism)

[edit]
Zeitgiest, the movie (criticism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article consists of nothing more than NPOV and OR work that was repeatedly excised from Zeitgeist, the Movie. Main issue that it is NPOV and OR has not been addressed. Nevermind, article was redirected while I was typing this. Gromlakh (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Catholic Church

[edit]
True Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non notable group or sect of a few tens of people. No notability asserted through reliable, third-party sources; could even be an autobiography or primary research publication... Raistlin (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge into Beaver Island State Park. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway

[edit]
South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed. There is no indication that this highway and its intersections are notable; the rest of the article is about Beaver Island State Park which already has its own article. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – no third-party sources, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise plays for lease. KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro's Fly Ten Year Reunion

[edit]
Alejandro's Fly Ten Year Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable play. It was written/performed in a high school and has never been performed elsewhere. The only coverage of it seems to be the high school's newspaper. Metros (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will burns

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

    Not notable. Worked for Obama, and he is currently RUNNING for a state office in Illinois. Never held any office. This falls short of notable. Anyone can run for office by filling out a form, so that won't fly. Pharmboy (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree but chose to AFD solely because of the potential turmoil in trying to speedy a political candidate. Felt it better to air it very publicly and get others input, and a few more days won't hurt wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael A. W. Griffin

    [edit]
    Michael A. W. Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page has been tagged with the "Notability" template since June 2007 and no attempt has been made to assert the subject's notability. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BulletProof Messenger

    [edit]
    BulletProof Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsigned band, lots of claims of notability but no references. A quick googling shows lots of myspace, etc. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time and fails wp:band. Pharmboy (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of the claims in the article are untrue, or greatly exaggerated as well. This band never "toured" with any bands. They have in fact, never really "toured" at all; mostly just being lucky enough to win a few local "battle of the bands," and doing "one-off" openings for big name acts at venues in which really any band can open as long as they know the right people and can sell enough tickets. These guys are merely just another unsigned New York rock band with a decent amount of buzz, a handful of big gigs, and egos the size of Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeqtioner23 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Non-notable band. Gromlakh (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - Sellaband is not the equivalent of a label; this band is unsigned. I might have said "weak keep," except I agree that nearly everything in the entry is either untrue or vaguely kinda not really exactly much of anything, in addition to being badly written. Wikipedia is no place for press releases. Hint to band: you'll know you need a Wiki entry when someone you don't know writes one. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashlene

    [edit]
    Ashlene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Just another non-notable music journalist, one of hundreds. The article itself isn't much more than a vanity piece with no 3rd party references to her notability. WebHamster21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrome Dreams (record label)

    [edit]
    Chrome Dreams (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable label and blatant spamming/advertising. Lugnuts (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kawe Khosrawi

    [edit]
    Kawe Khosrawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability beyond that this person exists. No cited works. Google search results returned mirrors back to this article. Except for tags, article has been untouched for nearly two years. DarkAudit (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DTT Surveillance

    [edit]
    DTT Surveillance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There are no provided non-trivial articles about DTT. One of the provided and still available articles doesn't mention DTT until page 2 and the other is just a company press release. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Most of the article seems to come from the corporate web site and so there is no 3rd party verifiability. Seems to fall under the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING JJLatWiki (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete this looks like a successful company, but there's no evidence that it's particularly notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nn - I went and checked the list of refs given. First two have expired links. Third one to L.A. Business Journal requires a log in (that's a no no). Fourth ref doesn't even mention the subject, and fifth ref from findarticles.com links to this very same Wikipedia article! Sting_au Talk 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually the Securityinfowatch article does mention the subject - about the last 40% of the article is about DTT's products. And requiring a login is most emphatically not an "no-no". However I have found a copy of the first few paragraphs freely available online and fixed the reference in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's no requirement that a reference not require a login, or even be online at all. Physical books and newspapers are just fine. Suggest that the references be changed to footnoted cites, with the author, issue, etc. filled in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only one of the references requires a login. 2 have been removed, so those wanting to keep this article based on those articles have the burden of finding a valid source. Of the remaining 2 references, one mentions the DTT, and the other is a common press release from DTT. For all the boasts, one would expect it to be an easy task of finding non-trivial articles of which DTT is the subject. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lynne Spears

    [edit]
    Lynne Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A user tagged this page for deletion but never created the AfD. I'm just completing the nomination. I suppose Lynne Spears' notability could solely be inherited from Britney Spears and might not pass WP:BIO. Spellcast (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Authors are not automatically notable; have you looked at the guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unpublished authors are not notable. When the book is actually published, then maybe. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Her other book was published in 2001, and made into a TV movie. See IMDB link below. Pharmboy (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete d'oh! The very link someone used in this AfD in 'evidence' is actually titled "Lynne Spears's Parenting Book 'Delayed Indefinitely"when she actually publishes it then maybe recreate, but for now it's as yet unwritten and WP:CRYSTAL. Merkinsmum 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CRYSTAL applies to future events that are not verified by reliable sources, and doesn't apply. The book was just delayed, and it is sourced but that is only one note. I don't really give a damn about any the Spears family personally and don't any of them intertaining, but 596,000 ghits of her name tells me that a few probably pass wp:rs. She has an IMDB entry as well, for the made for tv movie (shudder) she wrote and produced, based on her 2001 novel "A Mother's Gift". Again, I don't care for them, but that would seem to pass notability. Existing novel, wrote and produced a movie, and almost 600k other ghits I really don't want to swim through. Pharmboy (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I note that some of those 596,000 google hits may include references to her daughter, Jamie Lynne Spears. I've seen her name spelled with the e, and thought that her article was the one up for deletion when I came to this debate. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudo-orders

    [edit]

    This article is on a topic that is ambiguous and unhelpful and its associated category is confusing. The linked and similar article Chivalric orders is poor and needs improving but is easier to understand, and is enough for the topic. --Sannhet (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    this will create an improved clearer article. Having read the all arguments I do not now believe either article does anything that would not be better than a good edit to articles on individual orders. --Kyndinos (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strongest Possible Delete - labeling something as a Pseudo-anything should be done in the Article and with Citation! As it currently is operating this Article does not define what makes an Order "Pseudo" and is only causing edit/revert wars galore on every article that gets tagged "Pseudo" for unknown/unexplained reasons. Disclosure- my opinion is the same for the relevent Category deletion request. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose OK, as I understand, there are two problems. First, that article is causing revert war, but this is not problem of article or me, but this is problem of anonimous vandalism (somebody delete references and in second step he say, that this article is without references. Second, that definition of "self-styled order" is unclear, but this is reason for improvement, not for deletion! If somebody is wise for deletion, why he not improve article? Discussion page of article is only with my edits... It is like somebody want deletion without rational discussion about what is "bad" or "good". As I understand Wiki deletion policy, there must be discussion before deletion. Yopie 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    And what is interesting, Simsek is co-author of article Scottish Knights Templar and probably member of this association, Exit2DOS2000 is co-author of article Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (and probably member of this), Quaerere Verum is co-author Knights Templar in Scotland and I bet for his membership in Scottish Knights Templar. This is very interesting and make big shadow over theirs objectivity. Maybe is this sort of "templars revenge", but I´m not king Philip_IV_of_France :) Yopie 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, this isn't a "templars reverange", it is simply editors not wanting Articles we care about getting badly described in a badly defined Article and a similarly badly defined Catagory. If there is something "Pseudo" about a group, put it in the Article and give a Citation. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit surprised to see I am credited as co-author :-). The log shows both articles were created by SKT1314 (talk•contribs) and then developed by Steve Zissou (talk•contribs). An interesting conspiracy theory, but this is just about removing an article and a category that do nothing for Wikipedia.--Simsek (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, summary, there are two groups. First, who want delete this article, because is "badly written" - but this is argument for rewriting, adding etc. (Of course, I assume, that this group is connected with "Knight Templars"). Second opinion is, that this article have bad name - I agree, better will be "Self-styled orders" or "Revived orders" or so.Yopie 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
    Why do you insist that we are Knights Templar simply because we disagree with you? I kindly ask that you please stop making this kind of statement, it is not helping you put across your point of view. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. The idea that the delete argument is being driven by what the article describes as "the extinct order of Knights Templar" is a wonderful oxymoron, and is the weakest possible argument for retaining the article.--Quaerere Verum (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems an argument for renaming, rather than for deletion. I suggested one alternative name above. Can any one suggest somethign better? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What's in a name? that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet; I do not agree. This is an unecessary description, difficult to interpret, adding nothing. Get rid of it. --Sannhet (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Famous (rapper)

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

    Arguably insufficiently notable. I PRODded the article hoping for second opinion but the author (legitimately) deleted it so none was offered, hence bringing it here for discussion instead. Some association with Chamillionaire but I do not believe own article is warranted. Also in dispute over the name "Famous" so something would need doing to disambiguate. Previously went by the name Lil' Ken (various spellings); Lil' Ken article was speedily deleted earlier today and this appears to have replaced it (currently Lil' Ken is a redirect I put there). Ros0709 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motorway town

    [edit]
    Motorway town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Total neologism - nobody uses this term. And this list is always going to be OR / indivdual view. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood and Ice Cream

    [edit]
    Blood and Ice Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The director and lead actor in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have made the same joke three times in interviews and DVD commentaries - that the two films could be considered part of a "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy, as they both feature gory violence and Cornetto ice-creams. Neither of the films is marketed as being part of this trilogy, though, and no other sources reference it. Until we can do something more than write this up as the one-sentence joke it appears to be, I don't think it needs a full article. Delete. McGeddon (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This article seems to be a good place to record the documented themes that run through the films, and to act as a way to link them together (although maybe the latter would be better served by a category). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but the only documented themes to date are "they both have blood and they both have a coloured ice-cream"; neither Pegg nor Wright has spoken about it in any greater detail than that, and waiting for the possibility of better interview sources in the future seems excessively speculative. Given that the series only contains two films at the moment, the articles can (and do) simply link to one another, for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but the fact that the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy" has been mentioned by them on more than one occasion does lead me to believe that it is at least notable, and as such deserves some mention.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, we can note it, but until the available sources give us more than a one-sentence "both these films have blood and ice-cream", it's better noted in each of the two film articles, rather than being an optimistic and entirely unexpandable stub. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I keep saying they have more than 'blood and ice cream' in them. And everything that is repeated is intentional. Thats what links these films as a trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliw136 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we need citable sources confirming that these things are specifically in there as part of the trilogy, and not just as director's trademarks. After all, Arnie says "I'll be back" in virtually every film he's in, but that doesn't link them as part of a series! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to solve this is to accept that its intentional or ask the writers if its intentional. aliw136 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)aliw136 (talk)
    Neither option fits with Wikipedia guidelines. "Accept that it's intentional" goes against WP:VERIFY and to "ask the writers if it's intentional" goes against WP:OR. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... There is obviously the third option of "assume that it is unintentional", which is the only place we can go for now, until further interviews tell us more about Pegg and Wright's view of the trilogy. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Wiki still have the page for the 'Mediocre American Man' trilogy? There's no formal recognition of the trilogy existing in either Anchorman or The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - but it's still generally accepted that a trilogy exists. If it remains - there's no reason why this shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.40.137 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's just as unsourced as this one; if there's "no formal recognition" that it exists, then it doesn't have any place in an encyclopaedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep an article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very rare for a trilogy like this to be recognised as a trilogy, because we're thinking of the Lord of the Rings type trilogy. --aliw136 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    I saw they were being sold together in a set on Amazon. Supposedly when they finish the last film, it'll be sold in a boxset. (and with three different cornettos joke the writers on the DVD commentary.)--aliw136 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete this is true fancruft. Just important enough to be mentioned in the articles on the films. A title which is not used is not notable. In fact , the first reference has the writer using a different possible collective title " Three Colours: Cornetto." Possibly when they finish the films, they will give them a title and we can have an article. DGG (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They do mention "Three Colours: Cornetto", but they do also describe the series as the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy"-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy close. Repost of The Crystal Rod among many other good reasons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    THE CRYSTAL ROD

    [edit]
    THE CRYSTAL ROD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced ditty about a likely NN independent film. Very poorly written, almost unreadable at times. I would almost say speedy delete, except that A7 doesn't cover films and it isn't quite patent nonsense nessacary for G1. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TimeLETSystems

    [edit]
    TimeLETSystems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Absolutely zero Google hits on this topic. No resources given. No indication that this is term is in use in any significant way. Prod removed by author, without explanation. eaolson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    St. James Day Celebration

    [edit]
    St. James Day Celebration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable 'holiday' relating to basketball. Google doesn't seem to throw up any reliable sources, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated on that front. Prod was removed with the comment "This is a de facto holiday observed throughout the United States, observed accross professions and socioeconomic levels." J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion has been proposed on the basis of its non-importance. As the author, I would argue that the NCAA tournament phenomenon and its effects on the US economy are widely recognized in the wikipedia and the media at large. The movement toward a national holiday is relatively young--seven years and counting. However, if this article is deleted now, the wikipedia community will lose early documentation of a social phenomenon near its inception.

    Note also that the article is under construction, and additional supporting references are projected to be added in the coming weeks. Derekdsimmons (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Cute idea, probably will be celebrated much like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but unfortunately there isn't enough support for this new holiday yet to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Feel free to prove me wrong, you have about 4-5 days... -- RoninBK T C 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kraata

    [edit]
    Kraata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Orignal research plot summary about aspects of a fictional universe. There is no real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the entire article is plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or conceivably merge, or perhaps simplify. The meaning of "plot summary" is "plot summary," not "related to the plot". Characters and plot are separate elements of fiction. They are interconnected, but so is everything about fiction. A description of plot characters or setting taken from the work itself is a permitted and possibly encouraged use of primary sources. Summarizing in an objective manner is not original research, but the basic way we write articles at WP. DGG (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fancruft with no real-world relevance. Transwiki if feasible. PKT (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion based on failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warren, East Sussex

    [edit]

    Warren does not appear to be a place in Eastbourne, as a local I am sure I would have heard of it. It certainly lacks nobility. The article is just one line, created by a single user. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

    [edit]
    Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This was speedy-tagged as an A7. I declined to delete it on the basis that notability was asserted (although I stated that I wasn't at all sure that it would survive an AfD if brought here). Today, the subject of the article appears to have requested its deletion. Given that it might not clear WP:N as it is, I think the apparent request of the subject should be enough to delete this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The last conclusion for this AfD is: The article stays on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubek15 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAIK there is no conclusion to this AFD yet. The above comments are somewhat puzzling. Ros0709 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any idea whether the award is notable in Poland? I always feel uncomfortable deleting articles of foreign subjects whose articles were transwikied here from somewhere else. If the Polish article was deleted first, this would make more sense. -- Kendrick7talk 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — sole sourced claim to notability is a single award at an internet and technology expo. Especially given that the subject requests deletion, I don't think there's enough here to satisfy notability guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In deference to User:Kpjas above. (Other reasons apply but I think in cases where someone is almost definitely non-notable and posts a notice such as above, it trumps all others per WP:BLP) Also clear self-referencing issues within the article. Orderinchaos 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the following quote at WP:BLP "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted, and may exercise his or her own discretion in fulfilling that request.". Clearly meets that standard, the notability here is borderline at best, and given the self-request to have it deleted, it seems clear there is not much of a reason to keep it around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per Jayron32 and Orderinchaos. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Counter-intuitively, I would not necessarily base the keep / delete decision on the subject's request that it be deleted. He comes across as a modest man but I suspect he'd secretly like the page to stay. After all: he's an admin, could presumably speedily delete it himself now (or in the future), but has not. Ros0709 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of out of process use of admin tools in an area in which you have an interest would be inappropriate. Let's assume he's telling the truth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Speedying his own article wouldn't be a conflict of interest, would it? Considering Angela Beesley was not just an admin but a board member, and wanted her article deleted, and didn't delete it herself... But, I'm sure she secretly glories in in as well. Yes, absolutely let's look into Kpjas's heart, and not pay any attention to what he actually says. No, wait, that's not sufficiently verifiable, is it? I've got it - let's use divination by tea leaves! I've just drunk a cup of Earl Grey, and, stirring the cup three times widdershins and peering into the dregs ... no, the tea leaves say, he wants it deleted after all, like he says. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, please do compare our article Angela Beesley, which has 12 sources, and still has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, mainly for the "she doesn't want it" reason, coming reasonably close each time. Now Poland isn't quite as media-rich and Internet-wired as the UK, but neither is it Chad. I think a little bit more than a paragraph about winning an award can be asked for to prove Kpjas to be undisputably notable, in the face of his not wanting it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Although I haven't registered an opinion here as such I did tag the article for speedy delete when it was created on grounds of notability. Given the overwhelming opinion in favour of delete so far I do not think that observation (carefully expressed as a comment, full of weasel words) will in any way affect the result. But I do respect the guy for taking the stance he has. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy delete as being the That Infamous Game again. Yet another group of schoolchildren have thought that they invented this game and have come to Wikipedia to write up their claim to fame. No you didn't invent the game of going from one article to a target by following links. It's ironic that editors mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. In an earlier version of that page we used to have a list of where this infamous game has cropped up. User:Metropolitan90 now maintains it on xyr user page. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikit

    [edit]
    Wikit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Should probably actually be speedied, but I figured I'd be nice and send it here. Google search returns no results, article is completely devoid of references. Appears to be a game somebody made up the other day. Gromlakh (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Why on Earth did you bring it here? I had already prodded it, it would have been deleted via that process. Oh well. I guess it's stuck here now... J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, just realised I gave no delete reason. I'll stick with my prod message- "There is a potentially notable piece of software called 'Wikit', but this is a non notable game made up in school one day."
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7, author request [6]. Hut 8.5 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster

    [edit]
    Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    List is completely unreferenced and appears to be a spinoff from Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa. I can't see how this merits its own article. Gromlakh (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mancuspia

    [edit]
    Mancuspia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is non-notable and WP:OR. Speculation about a fictional creature in one short story? Yikes! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball delete pointless copy-paste fork of existing article `'Míkka>t 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    History of Romania since 2007

    [edit]
    History of Romania since 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Arbitrary sectioning of Romanian history, with focus on very recent developments; the text is of low quality and simply redundant to existing articles, and there is obviously no scholarly precedent for this. The entire article could fit nicely into the preexisting History of Romania since 1989 (you'll also note that the creation of this article has left the other under an absurd title - "since 1989", but then "since 2007", and until?). Dahn (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What about my other points? Dahn (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the naming is not the best but that can be fixed without a deletion. As for your point about scholarly precedent, the 1989 article was created because in 1989 because communism fell in '89. And while the joining of NATO and the EU are clearly not as momentous as the fall of communism, they are still important events that may merit a different article about the politics after the joining. I believe this to be a good faith nomination and I will most likely !vote delete if nothing is improved, however I believe it probably would have been better to wait a few days and see how the article developed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that aside, though, history since 2007 of any country will not be substantial enough to warrant an article. Perhaps in the future, Romanian history can be broke into 1989-2007 and Since 2007 as EU membership shapes the next 10 years of history, but at the moment, there's hardly enough content to warrant an independent article for Romania after EU membership. matt91486 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree completely; sorry if I didn't make that clear in my reasoning . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep 2007 was one of the most important years for Romania. Since 2007, Romania is a full EU member. Since then the history is changed in better. EU means that Romania will loose an important part of its sovereignity: currency (EURO), borders (Schengen) and so on.Anton Tudor (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:CRYSTAL. Dahn (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect to Rancid. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brett Reed

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

    The notability of the subject has not been established, and the article lacks any reliable sources by which it can be verified. The current contents of the article appear to violate WP:BLP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note A previous AFD resulted in Redirect back in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep This individual has been a part of a published group in one way or another for close to twenty years. I would strongly suggest, however, that more relevant information be added soon or otherwise face another discussion about deletion, at which point my vote would change to Delete.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge & redirect to Rancid. Unless there's more to say about him, the content here could be readily incorporated into the band article. If more material becomes available, this page can be re-created. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Lady J

    [edit]
    Our Lady J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable singer. The article is speedy-able, as it does not assert notability. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deep Red Meteor

    [edit]
    Deep Red Meteor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Defied

    [edit]
    Defied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - no reliable sources given in the article. The name of the band makes it a difficult search but a string with defied and band with various band member names tossed in for different searches turns up nothing resembling a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Standard Deity

    [edit]
    Global Standard Deity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. In-universe fictional new religion from a novel of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - where the merge target is, I'm not sure. Jasper Fforde's books seem to have rather more coverage on Wikipedia than the typical TV series would these days, and I can well envisage the entries for the individual books and characters (including this article) being combined into one single article in the near future. Probably The Eyre Affair is the best target for now. Tevildo (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark Revelation 1

    [edit]
    Dark Revelation 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also adding Dark Revelation 2, Dark Revelation 3 and Dark Revelation 4. Fails WP:N, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon for recent consensus on this issue, Delete All-- Secret account 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. The merge's said "merge anything useful", and then demonstrated nothing was in-fact useful. JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecotourism in North-West of Hong Kong

    [edit]
    Ecotourism in North-West of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    We already have an ecotourism article. There doesn't seem to be a reason why we need a special article for Ecotourism in a particlar area of a particular province of a particular country. As usual, de-proded by author without explanation. eaolson (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Ball

    [edit]
    Matthew Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A fifteen year old who is supposedly a grand master ninja. Of course, no sources for this incredible success story. I'm inclined to believe its a hoax. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

    — 78.145.188.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    You idiot! After it was nominated someelse has put that on. And Yeardley Smith is Lisa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr4zer (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thermae 2'40"

    [edit]
    Thermae 2'40" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable student film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of professional sports team owners

    [edit]
    List of professional sports team owners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This seems to be a load of things bundled into one list. I wouldn't mind seeing a list for each individual sport (e.g. List of Formula One team owners; List of soccer team owners), but having this seems a bit overkill. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - according to the page itself, the list includes anyone who has ever owned a sports team. Given how many sports teams have gone through many owners in their life, and there are hundreds of thousands of professional sports teams around the world, this list could go on forever. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Extrapolation to the limits of the absurd is almost never a very good argument in favor of deletion, save for those occasions like "List of White People". I do agree with DMN that this would be more useful if it were split up into individual articles (NFL owners, MLB owners, English league owners, etc.). It's not indiscriminate, since it matches the owners to what they owned. Since the identity of a franchise owner is just as relevant as the identity of the coach or manager, the topic itself is relevant. I'd suggest leaving this up long enough to merge the information into existing "owners of teams" articles, spinning off what's left, and then deleting. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorize? The list seems to add no new information other than to organize it. It's also incomplete. I notice they only had recent owners of the Chicago Cubs, for example. If you replace the list with some appropriate category, and the "succession boxes", then you wouldn't need the list anymore. Any volunteers for that work? FYI, the list has been around since November 2006, when User:Tecmobowl created it. However, he has nothing new to say about it, as he's been banned from wikipedia since last summer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also the question of team Presidents. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. During Bill Wrigley, Jr.'s ownership of the Cubs (which is not on Tecmo's list, as he only starts with the son, Phil) the President was Bill Veeck, Sr. But under Phil and his son Bill III, Phil and then Bill were the President. But once the Trib bought the team, they've had a succession of corporate-suit "Presidents". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Gives more information than a category: sport, team, years. That's useful enough to have a list as well. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Granted, it needs much work. But it has some valid reference value and is similar in concept to other lists such as List of current Major League Baseball announcers, etc. JGHowes talk - 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter)

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability or demonstration that Kelly passes WP:MUSIC - no discussion of signing to a label, hits, coverage in reliable sources, awards, theme songs or any of the other criteria. WLU (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what exactly must the criteria be?. here is an independent singer/songwriter who ha a good career in the Benelux countries and Scandinavia. He has published 2 solo albums - sure, no big record deal but all tracks self written, recorded and published by the artist and GEMA (germany) and BUMA STEMRA (holland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.184.60 (talk • contribs)

    WP:MUSIC is most relevant, though WP:N is also a concern. You're mistaking a 'good' musician, who writes and plays his own music, with a 'notable' one, who has received, large amounts of coverage in some sort of press venue. Touring and producing albums isn't notable, lots of people do so. There needs to be some evidence that he's received attention beyond the crowds he's played for. WLU (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please refrain from editing out comments in an AfD. Even tangential comments deserve to be heard in the discussion -- RoninBK T C 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I looked for him on Aquarius and I couldn't find him in the Store or the links pages. Am I looking on the wrong website, or the wrong section? Kelly states that all of them are published by Aquarius Music, which does not seem to have a wikipedia page. If I'm reading his page for the albums correctly [8] [9] [10] [11], Aquarius music has produced four CDs - his (admittedly speculation). This looks like self-publication to me, not attention and publication from a label. His CDs appear to be on sale through CDbaby, which doesn't seem to be a label, it's an on-line store. WLU (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors

    [edit]
    List_of_BloggingHeads.tv_contributors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    I originally was the creator of this page, and in the first nomination for the deletion was the main proponent of keeping it. I have since changed my mind and determined that the deletion of this page would be best for wikipedia. It does not demonstrate a notability to stay, per WP:LC and others. I think it should now be deleted. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are List_of_BloggingHeads.tv_contributors, and the first AfD debate Gwernol 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crown Point Elementary School

    [edit]
    Crown Point Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Elementary schools are not normally seen as notable. There's no evidence for the notability of this particular school. andy (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also nominating Loretto Elementary School (created by the same editor) for the same reason. andy (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cadbury Kid

    [edit]
    Cadbury Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Neologism with no evidence of widespread use and no sources. I declined speedy-ing this, but didn't feel good about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unseen character

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

    Like stated in the previous afd, this article is basically an original research "magnet" and most of the article is still unsourced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, unreferenced and a candidate for cleanup certainly but it is a very important concept in the TV and theatre industries and I feel wikipedia benefits from having an article on it - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Honestly, this looks more like a list than an article, and should probably be split as such, with List of unseen characters showing notable examples of the archetype while this character should focus more on real-world notability via sourcing and... such. (My internal thesaurus is teh fail! ^_^) That'd make my vote a Keep, although if it turns out that way I will try to raise this issue on the talk page. JuJube (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It would be easy to source this, given that there have been several encyclopedias written about television programs, such as Tim Brooks and Earl Marsh's Encyclopedia of Prime Time programming (or maybe he wrote "Total Television", which also describes the shows in alphabetical order). This one could use some trimming since the last time I saw it ("Fred Sanford's deceased wife, Elizabeth", e.g.-- trying to get that picture out of my mind). But the unseen character is "seen" (in the viewer's imagination) less often than a regular, yet more often than a recurring character. I'm going to add some sources right now just to clear up the O.R. objections. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep it's now mostly just a list but the topic is notable. Needs significant editing. JJL (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - has the potential to be a good article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agree with the nominator. It's original research and a crufty list, not an encyclopedia article. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, that an article attracts cruft/OR/whatever is not a delete reason. This term is a real literary element. The article's quality is something you fix, not delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clean the article up a little and properly source it, and i think it would be a useful article. God knows there are worse articles on wikipedia Masterhatch (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Homepage hijack

    [edit]
    Homepage hijack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Duplicates information from several other places such as articles about internet safety, hacking and viruses. Redundant article reads as a how-to. Hardly seems to be about its own title. Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --VS talk 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    China at the 28th Chess Olympiad

    [edit]
    China at the 28th Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Similar AfD result of China at the 37th Chess Olympiad.

    It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to father. Secret account 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Robbie

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

    Delete unsourced blp about son of a famous person - notability is not inherited. He was a co-owner of a defunct team, as many rich people owned defunct businesses of many sorts doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Splatterball

    [edit]
    Splatterball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable AOL game. No outside sources. Lots of vanity, how-to, and blow-by-blow context. Extreme amount of original research into terms used, system performance, game opinions. MBisanz talk 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


    Pretty sad you guys don't even know how to use Google. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]75.111.18.86 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (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 Speedy keep; invalid nomination criteria. AFD does not consider simple page moves. JERRY talk contribs 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy Access

    [edit]
    Easy Access (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not notable as a proper noun. So it should be deleted in addition to moving the content to Accessibility. Zondor (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would prefer to keep it. Tabletop (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge with Accessibility. Wongm (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerard Gauthier

    [edit]
    Gerard Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable article subject, evidently not substantially covered in multiple reliable sources. Would seem very unlikely to ever become more of an article than at present. Ødipus 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having found satisfying RS on the subject, I'd like to withdraw this nomination and apologize for wasting people's time. Ødipus 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm going to see if I can find out what the general consensus is on major sports officials, but he definitely had a long career. If some referees are considered to be notable, he certainly would be having officiated 6 Stanley Cup finals. matt91486 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I looked at the IceHockey WikiProject and they've been trying to determine this very consensus. They've been going along the lines of the baseball wikiproject's standard which is "Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games. Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement." If we translate this to hockey, Gauthier easily exceeds these requirements having done more than 2000 games (considering the hockey season is half of the baseball season, that's more than 20 seasons as an NHL ref) and the 6 Stanley Cup finals. matt91486 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Patken4 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Over 2,000 games worked during 32yrs? Certainly notable. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GHS (high schools)

    [edit]
    GHS (high schools) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is just one of many similar lists masquerading as dab pages created recently by the same editor. The matter was fully explored at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools but the editor pressed on regardless. It's a pointless list of schools that are linked only by their initials, which no-one would ever search for and probably never stumble across but which will appear in search engines and create confusion. One such page may be over-enthusiasm by the editor but creating so many after a full debate is verging on vandalism. andy (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also nominating the following pages:

    MHS (high schools)‎
    WHS (high schools)‎
    AHS (high schools)‎
    BHS (high schools)‎
    CHS (high schools)‎
    DHS (high schools)‎
    EHS (high schools)‎
    FHS (high schools)‎
    HHS (high schools)‎
    IHS (high schools)‎
    LHS (high schools)‎
    PHS (high schools)
    RHS (high schools)‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't see the problem. We have dab pages for mhs, whs etc and these would be clogged by the addition of a long list of high schools so it seems reasonable imho to hive them off to separate linked pages as has been done. As to whether readers would input the initials; why wouldn't they? if they had heard mention of (eg) rhs and wondered what it might mean, then surely we want them to type it into wp don't we? That's what wp is for. Abtract (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all (do not merge into the TLA page.) Block user for disruption. Suggest removing high school redirects from the TLA page, as well, as, if all high schools are notable, then even those which don't presently have an article should be listed under Wikipedia guidelines, making these pages inherantly unworkable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Taking MHS as an example, all the high schools listed have wp articles and therefor must be presumed to be notable ... it is a pretty fair guess that these schools are often known as "MHS" ... what else are dab pages for? I have no axe to grind here but it seems to me that more is preferred to less. Abtract (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is escalating - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RightGot. But check out what a disambiguation page is actually supposed to be: Wikipedia:DAB#Set_index_articles. "A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts". That doesn't describe these silly pages. They're not lists of conceptually different articles that might be confused, nor on the other hand are they lists of related items. If these articles were called something like "List of schools with the initials GHS" it would be easy to see how ridiculous they are. We don't have "List of foods whose name begins with A", do we? Why not? andy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm keeping an eye on the WP:ANI situation too, it seems that everybody needs some Vitamin WP:CHILL.... I'm all for letting the ANI process unfold as far as RightGot's fate. It still seems to me though that there is still some considerable debate regarding how to handle the school acronym situation. I do not however think that AfD is the proper forum to handle this debate. Once a consensus is reached on how to handle school acronyms, then we can decide if these pages should stand. -- RoninBK T C 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This [17] is MHS before User:RightGot's edits. I think we can all agree that the current incarnation [18] is a better solutions. Simply dropping the TLA's for the schools is problematic because the schools is sometimes referred to by their initials. Taemyr (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with RoninBK, that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools has yet to reach any consensus one way or the other, and the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RightGot smacks a bit of forum shopping to me. If it is inevitable that high schools will be listed on these dab pages (and I do think it is inevitable, regardless of warnings or patrolling), then I do like the current MHS. This is similar to name dab pages with "nested" Name (surname) and Name (given name) pages (like Shepard, to pull one out of the blue that I was on just today). I would encourage everybody to tone down the conflict and try to develop a solid consensus. This seems like an important thing to get right - and forum shopping and AfDs (and the inevitable deletion reviews that will follow) don't seem like the best way to figure out a long term solution. I would say that this is a Keep, but I'm not emotionally invested in it. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It was not intended as forum shopping, but as an honest question of whether this (clearly disruptive) editor has surfaced before and was blocked before. I had no intent of linking the sets of vandalism edits incompatible with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but treating each set as a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Debate policies, not personalities. Regardless of the editor's motives, the question at issue is whether or not these acronyms should be spun out to separate dab pages. Leave the rest to the ANI discussion. -- RoninBK T C 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, so why not have AAA (high schools), AAB (high schools), AAC (high schools)... all 17,576 possible commbinations? And then there there's the four letter acronyms. Because this isn't a legitimate disambiguation - there's no underlying ambiguity. No-one is going to confuse Muscatine High School, Iowa with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia, and no-one is going to thank WP if they google MHS and end up on a page full of school names. andy (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two responses. First, we are only going to have this problem with TCAs ending with HS (maybe one or two other combinations but certainly not them all). Second, the point of dab pages is for readers who are not quite sure what article they want ... of course no-one would confuse Muscatine High School, Iowa with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia ... but no more would they confuse Message Handling System with Michigan Humane Society ... but they may have the initials MHS in their mind and have a vague idea that it is in Michigan, or Muscatine, or Malaysia etc. That is why we have dab pages for TCA's and I see no reason why schools should be excluded. And if the school bit get big enough then spring it off onto a separate page. Abtract (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So we need a dab page for TMK high schools as well - the only TMK entry in WP is for the Soviet space programme, completely missing the Malacca school and also Turk Maarif Koleji in Cyprus. Why stop at TLAs ending in HS - there are only 26 of them after all? andy (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? If you think a dab page for TMK is needed, then go ahead. We all know wp has a long way to go before it even approaches completeness but that is not reason to remove perfectly good dab material. As I said above, a better question than "should we disambiguate high schools?" is "should we separate out very large sections into separate dab pages or leave them with the main page?". Personally I think common sense says we should separate when it improves navigation. Abtract (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, Abtract makes a good point for removing the links to high school acronyms until verified. That would solve the page size problem, as these pages would not be as grossly populated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep - Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficulty level

    [edit]
    Difficulty level (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Your first reaction to this AFD may be "Hey! Difficulty level, that's a notable term; it should be kept." But I'd like to ask yourself to slow down and actually have a look at the article. Now, think about it: exactly how informative could this article possibly be?

    Let's break it down.

    First, we have the lead. Which gives us an obvious description to an obvious term. "In general usage, difficulty level refers to the relative difficulty of completing a task or objective." Duh. Does anyone really need to have that spelt out for them to understand?

    The rest of the article crumbles into a slew of examples about how "such-and-such games has such-and-such difficulty options", "playing on this difficulty in this game changes this aspect" and so forth. Try this experiment: read the article while ignoring every example. Not much real content is there? What the article boils down to is this: glorified cruft. No matter how many examples get added, there will always be more to thrown in, since every game handles difficulty differently. Wikipedia is not a game guide, we shouldn't be spelling out every way difficulty can be changed in a game.

    I rest my case. SeizureDog (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Merge/Redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maureen Graty

    [edit]
    Maureen Graty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This character only appeared in one episode (and that was on a TV screen), and was heard on the phone in two more. Clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hebrew Programming Language

    [edit]
    Hebrew Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Seemingly dead project (last news update was five years ago, forum on site is broken) with no established notability (no programs written in it deployed, < 500 ghits). Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. No indication of notability in article itself nor evidenced by homepage. Google search finds a couple of dozen mentions, but mostly just pages linking to or reiterating what is said at homepage. HPL itself is/was apparently really little more than a project to translate PHP by replacing its tokens with some derived from Hebrew. —SlamDiego←T 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn project; could be notable when completed but no evidence of WP:N now. JJL (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - I don't mind either way. I added it because I knew of it and wanted to add it to the non-English programming languages category. But if it doesn't amount to anything, it can be removed. Shlomif (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep (non-admin closure) ChetblongTalkSign 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Champagne Salon

    [edit]
    Champagne Salon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmed Salim

    [edit]
    Ahmed Salim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


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

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Psihos

    [edit]
    Peter Psihos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


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

    The result was delete. Secret account 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn fast Fourier transform

    [edit]
    Damn fast Fourier transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This topic is mentioned in exactly one book, and makes no sense. There is insufficient context or explanation, but I've decoded it and can state that it is clearly not a "fast" was to compute a FT or DFT; it is an incremental DFT, giving the DFT on an sliding window, which is very different from what it claims to be, which is some guy's idiosyncratic idea. Let's get rid of it, since it's not notable (that is, it does not have multiple independent reliable sources). Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I did a search on google scholar and found another 2 articles on the subject. I also noticed that it have computer science stub on it but the subject would appeal more to a electric engineer than a computer scientist. I suggest that we add a tech stub to the page and give it another chance. Equanimous2 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But wait – those are both ARRL publications by Doug Smith, KF6DX, the guy who made it up. There are no independent uses of this concept or name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep, editors may merge as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fnu Lnu

    [edit]
    Fnu Lnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Totally unsourced; not really notable or interesting. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was nom withdrawn. Kurykh 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness

    [edit]
    Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Demo cassette tape, limited to 500 copies. Prod tag removed, no sources for notability provided. Aipzith (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sony Ericsson W760

    [edit]
    Sony Ericsson W760 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Newly announced phone with no established notability. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikpiedia is not a cell phone guide. Too few substantial third-party references are available to create an article that itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep While Mikeblas is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide, I would argue that keeping users informed about new consumer technology is a reasonable application of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the article is not biased, and is a simple presentation of facts. If someone would care to substantiate what a "reliable third-party source" is, I will find and post some.TMSTKSBK (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to come around to Mikeblas's point of view, but I would like to request that this be frozen until the discussion concerning cellphone notability at the Village Pump is resolved. TMSTKSBK (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling (searching using the Google search engine) for "W760 review" or "W760" brings up significant numbers of results for this phone. Some sites include MobileBurn, Engadget Mobile, Cellphonedigest, Gizmodo, Mobile-Review, Esato, CNet, and PhoneArena. CNet, Engadget, Esato and MobileBurn are all pretty well-known consumer electronics websites. Would you consider any of these to be adequate as a 3rd-party source? If not, what would you like for me to provide? TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:N for information on "substantial", and WP:V and WP:RS for information on "reliable". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read those. Now please tell me your thoughts on the matter and let's discuss. TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell us anything notable about it? It seems to be a phone with things that all phones usually have. Does it have anything new or different about it? Is it the first phone to have something interesting? Or is it known for being the least innovative phone of 2008? Seriously though, I'm sure there's got to be something going for it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Estée Lauder pleasures

    [edit]
    Estée Lauder pleasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Also goes against WP:NOT#ADVERTISING Russavia (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Google News Archieves has over 300 sources listed for this line so it is both verifiable and notable. [21]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Having looked thru Google News (before putting this up for Afd), I noticed that many of the results are press releases, so they can't be used as a basis for WP:N. Many other sources don't write extensively on the product in an encyclopaedic fashion, and many others mention Pleasures but in the context of the overall Estee Lauder product line/profits/etc. And then there are some which are about Pleasures, but other products such as Pleasures Delight, Pleasures Exotic, etc. And then some are about Gwyneth Paltrow being the face of the product; this may be suitable for a mention in her article but as notability isn't inherited, it can't be used to give this product notability. --Russavia (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It won the 1995 FIFI awards! Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am aware it won the 1995 FIFI, however, this alone can not be used as a determination as to whether an article is suitable for inclusion, yay or nay? My opin is nay, unfortunately.
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WP:RS are abundant, nominator is being querulous. Rebecca (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyvio/Comment I have removed from this article copyvio which has been lifted off another website. Pricing information removed due to WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. The 'reference' does not exist and is a commercial website so have removed that as a potential spam link under WP:EL. Having a celebrity endorsement is not reason enough for an encyclopaedia entry. --Russavia (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenwood cricket club

    [edit]
    Greenwood cricket club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prod was contested about 5 weeks ago. Concerns over notability: I find a few (34) ghits, but only in personal webpages, sports listings and community guides for Perth, and so on, and nothing in Google News. The city of Wanneroo (in which league they play) has a population of 110,000, and the town of Joondalup, Western Australia (in which they are based) has a population of 7000, so not making this a major sports association. No major sporting awards or other stories to establish significance. — BillC talk 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy deleted as CSD A7 by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles S. Panek

    [edit]
    Charles S. Panek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet WP:BIO. No references supporting notability given or found. CSD and prod deleted by anon IP. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    page under construction, notable person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.200.200 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Abbinanti

    [edit]
    Robert Abbinanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    insufficient/hopelessly unclear notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Article professes to be about an amateur boxer, thus failing WP:BIO on inherent notability, and presents no reliable sources for his notability, thus failing the primary notability criterion. He's got a page on the boxing wiki, edit that one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: That the article might still be in its infancy is one thing, but I'm curious as to how all the time in the world will conflate a local amateur boxer into some measure of notability. Beyond that, the paragraph on the subject's alleged mob ties is vaguely written and almost entirely unconnected with him, and WP:BLP demands a great deal more than a single link mentioning the subject's name in a twelve-year old appeals decision (concerning someone else, as to that) before declaring him a Mafioso. What elements of WP:BIO do any proponents of the article claim this fellow meets?  RGTraynor  07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to admins: The content of Jill King (singer) was moved to Jill King after the deletion was made. I ask that the page on the singer not be deleted as a G4. I had this happen before with Shane Minor, and I don't want it to happen again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jill King

    [edit]
    Jill King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article a couple of claims to notability, but I don't think that it's quite enough. Claims that her art is in the Brookfield Zoo and Encyclopedia Britannica are unsourced and appear unverifiable. Only reference is to a redlink and appears primary. A search for reliable sources turned up none.

    (Note: This AfD is not biased in any way by the fact that I have just created Jill King (singer), a page on an unrelated country music artist. However, should this page be deleted, I would appreciate if the content from Jill King (singer) were moved here, to conform with naming conventions.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:BIO. Even if the unsupported claims do turn out to be true, still seems to be on the wrong side of the bar of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So far, all the reviews listed here check out. Artemis-Arethusa, who created the article, has a good understanding of the Chicago art scene, but unfortunately xe hasn't edited since October, so I'm not sure if xe'll see this discussion. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do to clean up the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, never mind. I'm not sure how much I can do with this article. The reviews generally don't give me much to work with, and it seems her best-known work is just a mural in a suburban theater. Zagalejo^^^ 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if refs can be found. Both the artist and the singer of the same name seem to have borderline notability. The artist seems to have had several exhibits. A few decent references should be enough here. The details of exhibitions, etc. listed on her website appear to be true.--Michig (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cultural Vibe

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

    Non-notable remix musician. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Secret account 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty Ugly

    [edit]
    Pretty Ugly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable rapper, has yet to releae an album. Corvus cornixtalk 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Has appeared on Grand Theft Auto, has done work with many notable rappers, including Hi-Tek, 50 cent, DJ Whoo Kid, Royce Da 5'9", etc, releasing album sometime in 2008. (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Are you going to argue your point at all? (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Unless you decide to argue your point I'm gonig to take away the delete thing, because the page reaches notability guidelines. (Joelasaurus (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • Delete Don't get me wrong, it's a good start to establishing notability, but you're gonna need more sources for the article to stand. The one source that's not self-published is good, but a reading of that article suggests that given the troubles he's had with the law and his record labels, the statement that he is going to be dropping an album this year might be WP:CRYSTAL. -- RoninBK T C 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see roninbk's point, and i am planning on getting in touch with p.u on the matter, i am currently seeking information and references, sources, interviews, and anything else i can find about p.u. www.gamecrib.com wouldve been helpful, if the site hadnt of have been deleted, but i am finding small articles and things. Also, see my point above, collaborating with well-known artists should garner notability. (Joelasaurus (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Joelasaurus, I seriously doubt you'll find the articles by the time this AfD closes. It's nothing against Pretty Ugly, it might just be that it's not his time to have a Wikipedia article. You might want to copy the page to your User space so you can keep working on it, and once you have some serious publicity coverage for him you are certainly welcome to recreate the page. You might also check out Wikipedia:Alternative outlets in the meantime. -- RoninBK T C 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dream Satellite TV

    [edit]
    Dream Satellite TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article is WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Request for non-primary sources are removed by anon editors Diff there does not appear to be any attempt to meet Wikipedia expectations. Jeepday (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-08 Lake City Timberwolves Basketball

    [edit]
    2007-08 Lake City Timberwolves Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    High schools, in general, barely squeak by on the notability list. Their basketball teams do not. A year by year discussion of the basketball team's matchups is not notable by any criterion. There was a prod added, but the article creator removed it. Corvus cornixtalk 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PLEASE CAN WE LET IT STAY?! IT TOOK ME A LOT OF TIME AND HARD WORK TO CREATE ALL THIS, AND IF I KNEW IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE DELETED, I WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED IT..SO CAN WE *PLEASE* LET IT STAY, I'M DOING IT FOR FUN, AND SO THE KIDS AT LAKE CITY HIGH SCHOOL KNOW WHAT TIME THE GAMES ARE, AND WHERE, AND ALL THAT. I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK INTO YOUR HEART, AND PLEASE LET THIS ARTICLE STAY. THANKS. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It certainly does look like it took you a lot of work! I'm really very sorry, but Wikipedia is simply not the place for this, unfortunately. Maybe you could think of another way to get the word out about games, perhaps flyers or a noticeboard at school? I do feel guilty about voting delete for something that obviously took a lot of time and effort to create. You could save the source text for the article in your computer to preserve it for posterity, and maybe the essential bits can be merged into your school's main article. SeanMD80talk | contribs 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    man...but i've seen worse things on wikipedia dang. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Re-keep; non-admin closure per WP:SNOW; three more straight keep votes. Also, the person who pressured User:SeanMD80 to relist it had questionable reasoning. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Montenotte, Ireland

    [edit]
    Montenotte, Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced, no indication of importance/significance, prod reverted. According to Talk:Montenotte, Ireland it's a large neighborhood but that's not sourced, google show hotels, houses for sale, nursing home but no notability, books.google show it listed as an address several times. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:04z

    • I would like to point out that OUTCOME is an unsourced essay, and thus has no actual say over whether an article is kept or deleted. Please cite actual guidelines and policies (which DO have say) when commenting. TJ Spyke 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OUTCOMES is still just an opinion piece. That means actual guidelines and policies always over ride OUTCOMES (this mainly applies to school related AFDs, where some people think they should be kept even if they fail WP:V and WP:N). TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Places have time and time again been shown to be notable after consensus. I'm not sure tagging the outcomes essay with an unreferenced tag was appropriate either, being that it's not an encyclopedic article and therefore doesn't really require citations. matt91486 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If it's an address it's a postcode thus notable. There are scattered references to the district dating back to the 19th century and it seems right now to be one of the nicer parts of Cork. This is certainly verifiable in any meaningful sense of the word, no matter what our article contains at the present moment. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. SeanMD80talk | contribs 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Keep. Cite and ref issues aside, is automatically notable as per other suburbs/towns/etc. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - one of the more notable Cork suburbs in itself. Notable anyway per Guliolopez - Alison ❤ 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can someone please explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old? [24] is vague but seem to call it a suburb. No referenced reliable third party sources about Montenotte indicate that it's notable. WP:OUTCOMES#Places says "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)". No sources are listed showing it has its own government. The number of residents is tiny, so it's not a large neighborhood which is also mentioned in OUTCOMES. What am I missing here? I can see how it's a fine topic for a messageboard, but how is this a notable and encyclopedic topic? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-22t21:57z
    I must remind you as the one who closed this AfD early (?) that if AfDs were just substitutes for applying "policy" then we would have no reason for them. AfDs are about determining which action the community feels is right and appropriate. If the consensus is to ignore "policy," then it can do that. Policies on Wikipedia are not laws, but reflections of the community's previous general consensus. Policies change when consensus changes. Wikipedia is governed by the people that participate in it, not by the people that read it, and has no formal responsibility to those people as such. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Guliolopez (and others) although moving to Montenotte, Cork would probably be more in keeping with naming conventions. Montenotte is well-known in it's own right; the article needs references and expansion but it's more a case of finding and adding the print references. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William Matthews (head of school)

    [edit]
    William Matthews (head of school) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There are two links to New York Times articles, but this school rector simply still feel sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Do you have support for the assertion that the heads of major preparatory schools are notable? And what is a "major" preparatory school, anyway? (The high school I went to had more than 2000 students, and is a public school; what makes it less or more "major" than this school?) --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm now wondering which of the schools in Concord, New Hampshire would be regarded as major? Are we going public or private here? Concord, New Hampshire#Education. I checked a couple Concord High School (New Hampshire)#Notable alumni and faculty and St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire)#Notable faculty. I'm leaning towards delete as the first ref only an incidental mention. Second ref doesn't mention the subject and third ref is a school website. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As creator of the article you are certainly allowed to vote here. However AfD is not actually a vote as such. We are after consensus. So please add your opinion (and reasons) to keep here in this discussion. Having squash and hockey first played there makes the school notable. Not this articles subject. Likewise Hearst and Kerry give notability to the school but it could be argued that their notability had nothing to do with the school (or the current head). Sting au Buzz Me... 10:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect, noting that nobody has argued for deletion here. With respect to the target, I'll rather cleanup the redirects / dab pages related to Lar/LAR, though. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Las

    [edit]
    Las (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Mistagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio. Procedural nom. Keilanatalk 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a carbon of the last paragraph of Patroclus#Life before the Trojan War. Wikipedian 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it, as I'm guessing that the "third nomination" was a bug/mistake. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep as notable, but the references need cleanup. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxide radio

    [edit]
    Oxide radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced, WP:COI issues, and while Oxford University is notable, this particular online radio doesn't seem to be. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. After digging I found our article on Intermediate Units, but there's nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this particular one. KrakatoaKatie 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonial Intermediate Unit

    [edit]
    Colonial Intermediate Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of context, however, a Google search turns up some references. Procedural nom. Keilanatalk 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep --JForget 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]
    Real estate trends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The content is partly speculative; the topic seems to be more appropriate to a trade publication than an encyclopedia. Beland (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Tha Ripper

    [edit]
    Chip Tha Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The page doesn't show enough notability; external links are mostly of self-made pages; only one interview mentioned; discography shows mixtapes but no studio albums. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This was a tricky one, but he's not that well known so it currently doesn't meet notability standards. ― LADY GALAXY 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Syntax Records

    [edit]
    Syntax Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Probably not notable per WP:MUSIC. There are no third-party sources. The external links include Myspace. I suspect COI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete - fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skilf

    [edit]
    Skilf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prod removed by WP:SPA. Really thin on reliable sources, and no evidence of major radio, charts, awards, multiple albums, or anything else to establish notability. Shawis (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Cosoi

    [edit]
    Laura Cosoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article about a non-notable actress with no career to speak of. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    She also appeared in a strictly come dancing romania but i didn't write it down, if she's been on playboy she's significant, plus she's breathtaking lol Gaogier (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ps: she was actually a playmate[reply]


    keep: if she appeared in Playboy then I am sure there are people who are going to want to know something about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Benson

    [edit]
    Greg Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    YouTube comedian currently ranked 19th with 18,000 subscribers. Several weak claims to fifteen minutes of fame, I'm not sure that there's enough here to establish notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just removed the section about the show. Article now lacks sources, and thus fails WP:BLP as well. Please note that the addtions of references (in reliable sources) would fix this problem. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepJust because there's not enough there doesn't mean it's useless, I only just made it. Sure maybe I should've researched more before making it in the first place but now it's there, IT's THERE! And I will add more to it, I've notified Greg and asked if he could supply details and I gave him the article URL. But for gods sakes, I can't know everything about him can I? I've given what I know and researched as much as I could, other users can add to it as well, and perhaps Greg Benson himself can contribute facts about himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy0002 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that there are strict limitations on people editing their own pages; in a nutshell, it doesn't count that he can supply info from his own memory, but rather, only if it comes from a verifiable and reliable source that other people could check for themselves. So for example, if he has a newspaper clipping that isn't available online or through electronic databases, that's an example of info that can be checked that the person himself can point us to.Lawikitejana (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've spoken to Greg himself. He would prefer it if the article was deleted. And I respect his wishes so I no longer support this article. If anybody want proof of the message then feel free to message me. --Jammy (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's nice to know the subject's views on the matter, they're actually not relevant to the process of deciding whether he qualifies as notable, nor whether the article sufficiently demonstrates that point (though I appreciate your diligence and his flexibility). Lawikitejana (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This process is not a vote! It is a consensus. We do not count up the Keeps and Deletes and the one with the most is declared a winner! Shoessss |  Chat  10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, you can't comment Keep twice in a AFD. Secret account 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not much in sourcing, all of them are sources such as youtube, myspace, etc, which isn't reliable. Secret account 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Per above. Also, please note re: Secret's comment - not sure you have reviewed article since additional sources were added. There are now sources such as IMDb, which lists him in some 11 features, not counting his own short films, plus guest appearances in 10 television series. That still may not be sufficiently notable by some people's lights, but it's certainly more qualified as a reliable source by WP's standards. Incidentally, I've now removed the expansion tag, having added nationality, date and place of birth (sourced), education (sourced), and the marriages to Paige Davis and Kim Evey (also sourced).Lawikitejana (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Various reliable sources are now cited, including a second honor for film work. Also, the Tribeca item (now properly sourced) represents being selected as a finalist in a prestigious competition involving weeks of being featured on Amazon.com's main page. I'd argue at this point that notability is made.Lawikitejana (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete - fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rita Stone

    [edit]
    Rita Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Seems to be a hoax. I can't find any reference to this British actress with "literally hundreds of films" in IMDb, nor several random film credits I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was snowball delete - very clear consensus has formed to delete this, and as such, there's no need to extend this process longer. Also, this is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Vancouver Canucks season, and the reason for deletion here is is identical, that it utterly fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Maxim(talk) 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season

    [edit]
    2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The current season is not over yet. There really is nothing that can be written about any of these team's 2008-09 season until after this one is complete, as this empty template shows. Recreate after this year is done and activities related to the 2008-09 season begin. Pparazorback (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason as the above:

    2008-09 Ottawa Senators season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Phoenix Coyotes season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 San Jose Sharks season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Toronto Maple Leafs season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Los Angeles Kings season‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolve Festival

    [edit]
    Evolve Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prodecural nom; seems to be a non-notable music festival. Keilanatalk 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. No sources to verify the chart positions were provided after 15 days of discussion. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tempo Tantrum

    [edit]
    Tempo Tantrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article fails to assert notability. No 3rd party independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. ScarianCall me Pat 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge to List of Oz episodes. I'll do the redirects only though, since it is not clear to me how the target should look like. Including the mentioned references there, would be a good idea as well.Tikiwont (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To Your Health

    [edit]
    To Your Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also nominating the related articles: The Routine; ‎ Visits, Conjugal and Otherwise; ‎God's Chillin'; Capital P‎; Straight Life
    ‎ Delete all - all articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as being nothing but plot summaries of the episodes devoid of any real-world context or content. Attempt to redirect to List of Oz episodes was rejected by article's creator, who I assume would also object to a prod, so here they are. Otto4711 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, I don't see any difference of those articles from an article about an Seifeld episode, for example. I think they should stay how they are now. If anyone knows any "real-word information", edit the articles. Aolynthon (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marching Trojans

    [edit]
    Marching Trojans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Should be merged with North Hall High School, and in fact, the encyclopedic portion of the content is already present there. However, this article should also be deleted because the article name is too general and thus prone to collisions. DachannienTalkContrib 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete both. KrakatoaKatie 07:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagine Your Life

    [edit]
    Imagine Your Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also included in this AfD:

    Imagine Your Life is a non-notable unreleased album which says it was to be the follow up to a second non-notable unreleased album, Wrap Your Lips Around This. Article admits albums were never released and makes no claim to notability. A couple of the songs on Wrap Your Lips Around This had videos made of them but that makes the songs notable, not the unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bollywood Breaks Vol. 1

    [edit]
    Bollywood Breaks Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable compilation album. RJC Talk 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernie Dresel

    [edit]
    Bernie Dresel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm not quite sure about this one. It was marked for CSD as a NN bio, but seeing as he's apparently performed with Andy Summers and people like that, he may have a claim to notability. The lack of citations concerns me though. (Procedural nom) Keilanatalk 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the external links are supposed to be references, they should be so labeled. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgina Bencsik

    [edit]
    Georgina Bencsik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    lacks notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2008

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Time (album)

    [edit]
    Good Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Crystal balling here; still a little too early to warrant a page on this album in my opinion. The one-paragraph Billboard citation doesn't warrant substantial coverage in my opinion. The same is true of the only other reliable source I could find about this album -- this two-paragraph bit from GAC. Suggesting deletion, but with no prejudice against re-creation once more info is known about the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing per addition of verifiable information by User:Eric444. However, as others have !voted delete, I can't close this one up yet. Closed per change of "delete" !votes to "keep". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral, leaning towards keep. References look fine now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete, crystall ball work here. Recreate when there is more substantial material so that we can verify claims made in the article. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11. Keilanatalk 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LaCollinaTuscany

    [edit]
    LaCollinaTuscany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article is unsourced, lacks context, and written like a travel brochure VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus (default keep).JERRY talk contribs 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Manukyan

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

    Biography of young classical composer: Independent sources are scarce as are other indications of notability Tikiwont (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Aparrently no published material; not yet notable. Note: page content is also very heavily based on The Official Edward Manukya website. Ros0709 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral. I've carefully checked the updates since I first examined the article and have concluded that whilst it is true that he very much fails Criteria for composers and lyricists we do have published independent evidence of a minor concert performance and forthcoming CD release. Other articles have snuck into Wikipedia on less, so I am ambivalent about this now. Ultimately this matters little as this is not a vote but a recommendation to the reviewing administrator, and (s)he is going to have to be swayed, not me. Techincally, I still believe that delete is the only allowable result according to the rules - it just depends on how stringently they are applied. Ros0709 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment.Well, thanks for that. I am sure that more relevant information will be contributed soon. Let us not forget that it is imposible to objectively determine the notability of a Post-Soviet composer without knowing the Russian and Armenian sources, the languages and cultures in which he is most relevant. However, I believe that all that is available at this point is more than enough for allowing the article to remain in Wikipedia - especially taking into account the potential updates, which depend on future events, such as concerts and publication of material.Wild firebird (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More editing has been made Let's leave the composer's biography alone. Shall we? There actually IS a lot of published material, please do not post unsupported claims. 71.129.175.164 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. What is this published material? Please indicate where I can obtain sheet music or CDs of this composer from a recognised publisher (not the composer himself). I shall reconsider my delete if it indeed exists. (The obvious plagiarism of the composer's website would still be an issue - but that is not the justification for this AFD.) Ros0709 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Having said the above, I continue insisting that the article should remain in Wikipedia. The composer was an official "resident composer" with the Armenian "Renaissance" Chamber Orchestra (from 1999 to 2002). He holds a Master of Music Degree in composition, and in addition to his career in Armenia, he has had a number of concerts in United States as well, and his music has been performed by recognised orchestras. I also have a reliable conformation of a serious project with the Armenian State Philharmonic Orchestra, scheduled for this summer (2008), among many other project. Taking into account all the info I have provided, along with what is available from the composer's website and other sources, deleting this entry would be a vandalism. I suggest that we remove the deletion notice immediately. Wild firebird (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. If it is demonstrated that one or more of the six Criteria for composers and lyricists have been met then the article should stay. At present I do not believe any has been, but I advise that you consider expanding upon those concerts, in the article rather than here, in order to satisfy the second criterion: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. Future events require more care still - see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ros0709 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Front page article in (fairly minor) paper plus other references seem sufficient that he meets notability guidelines. Multiple independent reliable third part sources and all that. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete I wish he were notable. I hope he becomes notable. But he is not notable yet. None of these are major musical groups. DGG (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. DGG, you are wrong. The "Renaissance" Chamber Orchestra, the LA Winds and, of course, the Armenian Phil (scheduled for a performance and recording - Sept 2008) are all major orchestras. Other orchestras mentioned in the article may be of minor significance, but the three mentioned above are all more than enough for him to meet the notability guidelines. Please, do a fair research before you post such a comment.Wild firebird (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feeble Keep, presence of indepedent news coverage plus work with mid-level orchestras probably just tips him over the line. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Strong Keep, it's not only about the independent news covarage and the composer's professional accomplishments... the confirmed collaboration with a world-class orchestra such as the Armenian State Philharmonic Orchestra simply demands that this discussion be over.Shanongeorge (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Performances by major ensembles aren't part of any of the WP:Music notability criteria. Like Lankiveil said, he has a weak shot at notability from press coverage... but of the two articles mentioned, one (Roundup) looks trivial from the image. So unfortunately he doesn't satisfy #1 for musicians and ensembles either, which stipulates coverage in several articles. SingCal (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If performances by major orchestras aren't part of the notability criteria, then the vote submitted by DGG(along with other arguments posted here) are irrelevant. My research, using the composer's name in Russian and Armenian (Эдуард Манукян, Эдвард Манукян, Էդվարդ Մանուկյան), found some more independent sourses supporting the composer's notability. It can be easily demonstrated from various sources that a concert tour of Armenia (of about 20 concerts) is to be undertaken by Manukyan and composer/conductor John Kennedy this summer, with the Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra. There have also been a few important newspaper reviews in Armenia (one by Aravot) which couldnot be found online. So far, not all paper media in the former Soviet republics have established consistent online presence. The cultural bias should be taken into full account. To me, this case is closed, and the article should remain in Wikipedia.Shanongeorge (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I read through the whole discussion and it is my opinion that people here seem to evaluate an Armenian composer based on his notability outside Armenia. It hasn't been more than 5 years since he has relocated to California, and publications in US media may be a little scarce, but even before moving to US, the composer had a fairly public career in Armenia both as a songwriter and jazz pianist. There have been concerts in Armavir Red Palace, Yerevan Youth Center, Paplovok Jazz Club, the US Embassy in Armenia and many other venues... As a matter of fact, I myself created this original entry, which initially was a brief info about the composer. I might be able to find some reviews of his old concerts from some Armenian archives but I still don't think it's absolutely necessary. He does meet the guidline even with what has been presented so far. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to find information about such contemporary composers on wikipedia. He is indeed quite relevant in Armenia and has a growing success in the United States as well. Pantonal (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus although leaning more towards keep --JForget 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Asia

    [edit]
    North Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The phrase "North Asia" is not commonly used, and does not have a commonly accepted definition. (Web search shows a few uses with various conflicting ad hoc definitions.) The other regions (E,SE,S,Central,West Asia) have UN geoscheme definitions but this does not. JWB (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Asia before meant Soviet Asia, with the breakup of the USSR, the former Soviet republics in Asia except Russia and the three Caucasus republics became "Central Asia" while the Caucasus either became European or SW Asian depending on which authority and category you consult, then Russia east of the Urals became North Asia. So the most logical thing to do is to redirect this to Siberia. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are you getting that definition of North Asia?

    Search on "north asia" shows the term has wildly different definitions, many of which do not contain Siberia at all.

    United Nations geoscheme does not include a North Asia.

    The most accurate thing to say about "North Asia" would be that it does not have a generally accepted definition, and is only used when it is arbitrarily defined for convenience, from various incompatible viewpoints. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. The most we can say is that North Asia contains all areas of Asia not already included in other regions - but that's OR. If there's no consensus on a particular region to describe in this article, I'd recommend that the name be redirected to Asia itself. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for consistency with other parts of Asia, although I had a funny feeling about this article the first time I saw it, that it was kind of unencyclopedic. Equally, redirecting to Siberia could be OK. The term "North Asia" gets lots of Google hits, and turns up a lot in Books and Scholar. That should make it notable, right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If there isn't an agreed standard and the term isn't widely used, its hard to see what this article can actually be about. What's there now is clearly original research. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    West Asia is little used (although it gets a bit more use in places like India and Australia) but at least it is a little better defined. North Asia seems to vary between Siberia and various ad hoc combinations of East Asian countries. I only wonder whether we should have a page (or a subsection of Asia) that actually explains this. --JWB (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a policy that search results are not citable as references? People have deleted my references before, claiming this. --JWB (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep the term is widely used, and the citations show it. ditto for West Asia,etc. popularly thought-of regions, however poorly defined, are notable. DGG (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep North Asia's existence is verifiable and there are a lot of sources out there. The lack of consensus on these sources does not mean that we should delete the article. The fact that it is not used by U.N. is not a grounds for deletion if the term predates the UN.--Lenticel (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As a widely used term it should be here. If it's primarily a historically-used term, that's irrelevant with regard to the existence of an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep A good term for a geographic area that otherwise would not be defined. It is certainly NOT 'Eastern Europe', as the UN map referenced above would have you believe. UN is a political organization, not one of geographic scholarship. Hmains (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect. Merge as necessary. Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Psycho Dad

    [edit]
    Psycho Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - prod removed by anon, which, whatever. Fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that demonstrate that this fictional TV show has any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • In looking through the results of a Google search on this term [27] I was surprised by how many of the 91k hits for it were relevant, and by how many were fan pages for it (this [28] is from the 32nd page of the search), by how many references there were to it among fictional TV shows and dads (e.g. [www.tvsquad.com/2007/09/13/top-ten-tv-psychos/] from the 33rd page of the search), and by how many blogs, bands [29], etc. use it as a reference. Not the most compelling case ever, I'll grant, but I was surprised by its prevalence. Many of these hits have the lyrics so unlike [30], [31] it's easy to tell it isn't a coincidental use of the term. JJL (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •Keep - The Psycho Dad fictional TV show has real-world notability like youtube which is a reliable source that reflects popular culture- Psycho Dad YouTube Search- Psycho Dad Compilation and Psycho Mom,people on MySpace also use it as their profile name- MySpace PsychoDad- Another MySpace PsychoDad, and there is also a fan-made lyrics page - Psycho Dad Fan's Lyrics therefore I recommend it should be kept.Seralph — Seralph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The McQueen Sisters

    [edit]

    Redirect Nonsense. Totally unnecesscary beside from the BB thing. Easily redirected to one of the character's articles.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kappa Alpha Kappa

    [edit]
    Kappa Alpha Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails N. Only one chapter located at one college. Also, the article looks like an advertisement. miranda 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    weak delete Being located at only on school is certainly not grounds in of itself for being deleted. Many one school organizations are very powerful with long and storied histories. The machine at Alabama the secret societies of the Ivy league are just a few better known. However in this case the article is poorly written reads like an advert and when i did a search to see if i could expand it i came up with nothing. Still i want to stress that i believe that using a one school notability criteria is treading on dangerous ground and could run the risk of bias or just plain old losing good articles on good organizations.Trey (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Secret account 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Native American Indian Dog

    [edit]
    Native American Indian Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article has been deleted in the past by Proposed Deletion. Article subject is a new proprietary dog breed; there are no third party references listed, and after an internet search no reputable sources of information were found. Article contains a number of commercial external links Pesco (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I think the real issues are that it's hard to find reliable sources on the article subject and, since there doesn't seem to be any independant commentary on the breed, it hasn't demonstrated its notability. --Pesco (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I'm starting to agree with you. I still haven't heard back from the dog breeder? It also states on the article that they were going to continue working on it but nothings been done and that tells me they are just using it as an advertisement. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • EDIT 2: All right, I've done some heavy updating on the page, adding information, references, and trying to cut down on non-objective language. I hope these edits are sufficient. If not, let me know what I need to do, and I'll do it.

    EDIT 3: I was unaware that there were any puppy-mill associations with NKC. Is there some more authoritative (no offense meant) source available on exactly what's wrong with them? I'll do some Googling, but, honestly, that post didn't contain enough information for me to determine if it was a good warning or just sour grapes from an AKC supporter. Incidentally, the charges about them being bred for appearance alone are untrue -- Night Eyes, at least, is very insistent upon breeding for temperament. My experience with this breed and its breeders is the diametric opposite of what the hoax pages would lead you to expect, which is precisely why I wanted to make a relatively neutral page for the breed. They do exist, they will continue to exist, and while I can't speak for Majestic View, Night Eyes is an ethical kennel which takes extremely good care of its dogs and is very choosy about who is allowed to buy one. She's about as far from a puppy mill as it's possible to get. So I'm a bit skeptical about this NKC = Puppy Mill business, no offense meant. Nanimwe (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That Dogbreedinfo.com was an interesting site actually.[32] Add any reference sources you can fine. Any articles about them been published in papers. I'll say more on your talk page. Don't reply here please. Keep comments on AfD page short. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but make sure it's really neutral. In my vast (really) experience with wikipedia dog-breed articles is that, if there are people selling them by that name, the article will be recreated over and over. It's better to have the article and try to make sure that it clarifies as neutrally as possible that this is a developing breed, there might be only a couple of breeders doing it, that its legitimacy is still debatable, and cite ANY kinds of references that one can find. I do think that it's very hard to put info on the breed about its temperament, size, etc. when it's not even close to being a fully developed breed yet. As for the NKC giving it an air of authenticity--bah humbug. (However, we also don't need to require that a dog be recognized by the AKC to be legit--they've got their own issues.) Elf | Talk 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if allowing an article topic that only has unverifiable and possibly biased sources to exist merely because it might be created again based on the same sources is the best reason to keep an article, but I do understand the thought. In your opinion, is there a dog breed article that would serve as a good model for this case? --Pesco (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result wasDelete and create redirect to List of Mortal Kombat Conquest episodes. JERRY talk contribs 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold Reality

    [edit]
    Cold Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article violates WP:PLOT, even a television show needs to have more information than simply a plot summary. -- Atamachat 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete - fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lukki

    [edit]
    Lukki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Appears to have no qualification under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Perhaps asserts enough notability to not qualify for a speedy delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been cleaned up greatly following nomination and consensus has shifted to keep (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roseland Public School

    [edit]
    Roseland Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a not notable school. It has been put with a {{prod}} tag, which was then removed by the original editor. It claims to have 600 students (not exactly exceptional), with some events that is not unique. Doing a google search, I see nothing asserting importance. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Editors are free to create a redirect if it is deemed useful. Pastordavid (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carol Paul

    [edit]
    Carol Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Completing unfinished nom by User:Burzmali. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) No notability on her own, medical information isn't appropriate and might need oversighting, fails WP:BLP1E. Burzmali (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oversight - While the health info is probably not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, the article is does not appear to be approriate for Wikipedia either. Oversight removes individual edits from an article's history so they are not available for review. Per Wikipedia:Oversight there are three reasons to use this feature, none of which apply here as the content is released as public knowledge as shown in the reference in the article.
      • 1 Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
      • 2 Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
      • 3 Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
      • Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ASPIRA

    [edit]
    ASPIRA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedom's Five

    [edit]
    Freedom's Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable comic book group. They appeared in a flashback in an issue of Invaders in 1976. Outside of this flashback the group has not made any appearances. Stephen Day (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Redirecting to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like a sensible compromise to me. I'd like to withdraw my nomination and close the debate. Stephen Day (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy keep. Canley (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Note how the word no is a dab page, as it should be. RightGot (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy keep all. Canley (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    God (word)

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is dictionary material. I'm nominating the following entries for deletion for the same reason:

    RightGot (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    ‎

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

    The result was speedy keep. Canley (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I (pronoun)

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating the following similar entries:

    An etymological history belongs in a dictionary. RightGot (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RightGot (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hehe, Max Naylor. Max Naylor (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    ‎

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_19&oldid=1081074509"