Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is worthless vandalism and a fictional person, as obvious by the last name. Kimera Kat (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sasscer

(delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK, fails WP:RS, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:COI, fails WP:N, fails WP:V, fails WP:SPAM, fails WP:single-purpose account, and so on and so forth. Google throws up a palty 21 hits, [1]none of which can be considered WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very close to G11 advertising. Not one library has the one book he's published. A list of books with one published book on it is a new low. DGG (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks;

I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.

If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.

He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...

How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?

Everett

UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider. Thanks.

EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no indication of passing WP:BK or WP:BIO, nothing found in a search of Google News Archive. EverettGee, promoting a new author is not what Wikipedia is all about, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:BK and WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all vanity pages. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per snow (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that plentiful coverage in reliable sources asserts notability, with commentary that expansion is the ideal path of action. WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirimicarb

Delete unsourced one-liner about a pesticide without reason to indicate it's a notable product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 675 books, 4180 scholarly papers and 110 news items are all reasons that indicate it's a notable product. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough information for a stub, seems notable, and even has a reference now. --Itub (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relevant insecticide - Skysmith (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not so much a product as it is an active ingredient in many products. The number of insecticides approved for agricultural use is limited, and the level of effort required to get that kind of approval indicates a high degree of commercial incentive, and therefore notability. The article certainly needs to be expanded, but not deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could do with expansion, but plenty of coverage in WP:RS demonstrate notability.--Beloved Freak 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Phil Bridger's comments. The article could use an expansion, though. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It meets WP:N requirements with current reference, plus all the sources noted by Phil Bridger. Rosiestep (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should be expanded. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Pretty Quick. the_undertow ^talk 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Dolinska

Delete nn also-ran on a redlink reality show. I have speedied this before as has another admin, but let's take it here and sort it out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. Just being a contestant on a reality show doesn't make you notable, especially if said show is a red link. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I try to avoid saying "per above", but what else is there really to say.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per above. -- Alexf⁴² 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N and suspected hoax. PeterSymonds | talk 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix Reentered

Non-notable hoax trailer for a movie that obviously is not in production. Seems to have gained fame on youtube and myspace mostly. [2] is news coverage, and [3] is ghits. I see, well the aforemention, plus forums and the like. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I think an AfD is overdoing it. Seems more like blatant nonsense. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:48, May 8, 2008
Delete Only consists of one sentence which states the following "The Matrix Reentered is a fake a trailer, supposedly about the beginnings of The Matrix. No fourth Matrix movie has been announced.". So it's a fake trailer (which means it doesn't meet WP:N and is also a hoax) but also verges on WP:CRYSTAL (if it was actually real, which isn't the case) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Mainly, it appears to be a hoax, but it also fails WP:N. Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ec) Appears to be a hoax and it's also non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a separate article. This does give results, but unfortunately no reliable ones. If a reliable source was forthcoming, perhaps a section about the hoax could be added to The Matrix (series)? Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

Historical revisionism has a hatnote directing readers to Historical revisionism (negationism) in appropriate circumstances. There are no links to this page and there is no reason why a reader would find her/his way here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The mainstreem view is, in my opinion, that there is only one "movement" associated with the two-term expression "Historical Revisionism", namely that of the Holocaust denial variety. Nevertheless, we have so far allowed our editors therein to make a distinction between good Historical Revisionism, and bad Historical Revisionism. Therefor, we are left with the need to Disambiguate. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the the alternative, I propose that we distinguish between Historical Revisionism (the bad kind) and Historical revisionism (the good kind). --Ludvikus (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is already a distinction being made in the hatnote at the top of Historical revisionism. There is no need for a disambiguation page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a dab page when there are only 2 links. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and Wikipedia:Hatnote as there are only two meanings this page is not needed. I think that the creation on this page and the redirect under discussion here Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 5#Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) → Revisionism shows a profound misunderstanding by Ludvikus of what disambiguation pages are for. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Occam's Razor, and general common sense. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion.

We all know (I hope) what Historical Revisionism means to the vast majority of people. It means Holocaust denial. By creating that small - inconspicuos - "head note" you have effectively created a platform by which the world will be educated that there really is such a scholarly field as Historical Revisionism, when in fact there ain't. And if you think there is - the least you could do is see to it that Wikipedia readers are informed that there are two kinds. And for that you need a Disambiguation page. Otherwise, when readers type into Google "Historical R/revisionism" Wikipedia will come up first (as Google made sure it would) and you will cause confusion as to the fact that the dominant notion is the holocaust denial variety. The least you could do, for the good of the world (as an encyclopedia), is let the public know that holocaust denial exists, and that it is closely, and fundamentally, associated with Historical Revisionism. By deleting this Disambiguation page you are effectively misinforming the public. For these reasons I ask that you reconsider and give your support to my proposal, namely, Keep. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Ludvikus, you're saying, for example, that this book must be about Holocaust denial because there "ain't" no scholarly field of historical revisionism? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying we need a clear Disambiguation page - so people know there are 2 kinds! --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this DAB: Revision (click on it). What good is it? It's useless. We do not have an effective DAB --Ludvikus (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how about this: Revisionism (click on it). What does it do for us? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if you're trying to apply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that's a non-argument. B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I know what that it is. But if you read it carefully, you'll find that it's you who violated that piece of advice.
My argument is clear all the three (3) related WP:DAB's are not doing their jobs - namely Disambiguate clearly and effectively between

Historical Revisionism 1 and
Historical Revisionism 2.

Just click on each, and you should get the point! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, if you're claiming that I've applied the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to this discussion, you are mistaken. This is only my second comment in here - you've replied to my first - and I have not made a recommendation yet as to what to do with the nominated article. Now if you're referring to anything that I've said at WP:RfD, I suggest to keep those comments separate from these here as they are to a different "audience". Still no recommendation... yet. B.Wind (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:D. Disambiguation pages are not needed if there are a primary article and a secondary article of the same name - a hatnote is all that's needed here. If there is a page of the form "AAAAA (disambiguation)" with "AAAAA" as a main article (with very few - like two - options), a fairly empty dab page should be made into a redirect to the main article. Please note that this is not a reflection on the validity of the "Historical revisionism (negationism)" article as any discussion of that will be done at the appropriate time in the proper forum, not now. B.Wind (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the hatnote atop the Historical Revisionism page is all that's needed here. Dabpages without a single meaningful link to them have no reason to exist. Please stop trying to pretend that this debate has to do with the content of Historical Revisionism versus Historical Revisionism (negationism) - it does not. Merenta (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "pretending" on my part - only an effort to insure that the reading public does not confuse the two similarly named articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely - I wasn't WP:AGFing enough and treated you a bit harshly. Please accept my apologies. Merenta (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion. I appreciate the consesus regarding the usage of WP:Hatnotes. I'm therefore prepared to accept this as consistent with Wikipedia policy regarding the usage of Hatnotes. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. None of the people wanting to keep this have provided any compelling evidence of its real world notability. While, once a fictional topic is shown to be notable, the article may contain information straight from the primary sources, articles should not contain only (or even mainly) information from primary sources. I have looked at the news sources linked by LtNOWIS, and as far as I can tell, they only mention the Alliance in passing. Fram (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Alliance

Contested PROD, taking to AFD per discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. Original PROD reason was, "Are there any citations to reliable sources to establish real-world notability?" SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced original research. No evidence or even claim of real-world notability (no, it's not inherited from being in the EU). --EEMIV (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per EEMIV. --Gman124^talk 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced OR, no assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major element in a major fiction, running through several parts of the work. . I'm skeptical about these in general, and have !voted to delete and to redirect and so forth, but this one is sufficiently important. The sourcing is directly from the fiction, as permitted for fictions. The discussion of it will be in almost any of the published sources on the general subject. DGG (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main faction in 20 or so major, notable novels, as shown in various news sources. (Many of those links are not valid, but some are.) -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced w/no evidence of meeting notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a major component in a number of works, this is something that we should cover. The form of coverage is not a deletion issue, and nuking this article and telling the local experts to write said coverage from scratch and do it better this time has elsewhere been extensively demonstrated to be a non-viable option. --Kiz o r 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely doubtful that reliable secondary sources have devoted significant coverage to this specific aspect of the fictional universe. Article is entirely plot summary as well with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

Stub article for an individual country's participation in an annual international competition. Trouble is, the country has never actually participated in the contest, and all this article has to say is exactly that. There is no hope of expanding this article unless at some point in the future Bosnia+Herzegovina actually participates in the contest. Powers ^T 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some people will create a page for anything won't they? This page serves no purpose as Bosnia has never participated in Eurovision, just like the nom says. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Include in main article? Can this just be put in the main article for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest? It is a nice little bit of information but it doesn't need to be it's own page. Someone with editing experience could include it. bluefuzz —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there. Powers ^T 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - oops. yes delete ah didn't see it sorry. i agree with the delete. bluefuzz
Delete reminiscent of the dozens of articles Foo at the 19XX Summer Olympics whose sole content was "Foo did not participate at the 19XX Summer Olympics]]." that were deleted a while back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, like having "Francisco Franco in XXXX" articles that say he's still dead. WillOakland (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brown (Mayflower Pilgrim)

Delete purports to be a a geneology for a Mayflower passenger, which stops in the 15th century (the Mayflower sailed much later) then resumes a few hundred years later where finally someone of note comes into being, but alas not the subject of the article. Wholly unreferenced to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it's probably accurate as such things can be, it isn't encyclopedic: Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous genealogical data. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the editor who just created the only worthwhile text for the article. I would love to create a fully functional article on Peter Brown as exists for William Brewster, Myles Standish, Edward Winslow, etc., as I am a SMD member and confirmed descendant of Peter Brown. The user/editor-contributed genealogy that previously appeared on the article and Dhartung has cited above (RootsWeb is essentially a Wiki) is unrelated to Peter Brown, as even the New England Historical Genealogical Society and the General and Massachusetts Societies of Mayflower Descendants have no confirmed parents of Peter Brown. At this time, I don't have the time to make a decent article and its current form is little more than a paraphrase of existing encyclopedic information on Brown. Quissett (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the "person of note" (which, in this case, is used very loosely) is not or was not a descendant of Peter Brown. There were no same-name descendants of Brown as he only had daughters and only two of them had children -- named Tinkham and Snow. Quissett (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid that between the lack of references and non-genealogical material, there just is a decent article yet.-- danntm ^T _C 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Much has been written about each of the Mayflower passengers. Rewrite as needed, but the subject is definitely notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article has changed substantially since the above delete !votes.
Strong Delete. There are plenty of Mayflower passengers without articles. This is a terrible article, it has had a running history of misinformation and vandalism. It should absolutely be deleted. I see one of the editors above says he wants to rewrite it at a later date, well, good. But for now, it is a problem between the misinformation and failure to include encyclopedic information. Get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FEastman (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article has changed drastically since deletion nomination. Although, at the time of the nomination, it should definitely have been deleted. Branson03 (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete the article -- I agree that the article has been changed since it was nominated, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. It's essentially a stub now, it has a long history of vandalism (fake family trees and fake descendants again and again). It should definitely be deleted. DvonD (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep First, thanks very much for Quissett's help. Now as to DvonD's comment it is a stub yes but we generally keeps stubs. The presence of vandalism is not a reason to delete it. My keep is only "weak" because I'm not convinced that the article as it currently stands demonstrates much notability (although part of me might be inclined to say "well, if they were on the mayflower of course they are notable). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non notable.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saketh Bhamidipati

Stub about a Harvard student who wrote some note-taking software that we don't have an article on. Google hits confirm the software's existence, but not much else. — Gwalla | Talk 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gsearch not coming up with a whiff of notability. If the software is notable, mention him in an article on the software.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this person. Artene50 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Cardinal League

Junior baseball league with no claim of notability other than a handful of players who later became famous. Gsearch gives 7 hits (not all of which are about this league), nothing better than passing mentions. Reference in article is also a passing mention. Previous prod by another editor was contested. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yeah, technically that's not that valid, but Fabrictramp basically nailed every point abotu why this should be deleted. Wizardman 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of sources or notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. A split between those commenting here, and some evidence of notability provided by additional sources, though the critical reaction should be incorporated into the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blades (film)

Doesn't appear to be a notable film. Despite being released by a marginally notable developer, it seems to have no notable actors at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Sorry, but this commercial DVD release from a very highly regarded distributor (Troma) is not lacking notability for its genre. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is definitively lacking; there is certainly none demonstrated in the article itself. At best, this should be merged into Troma; in any event, WP:NOTINHERITED is a sufficient response to Ecoleetage's point. Any argument to keep should at least reference and satisfy WP:FILM, and I doubt it can be satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would respectfully disagree with the previous comments. The lack of recognized actors is not unusual for low-budget films of this genre (think of Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, The Blair Witch Project, etc.). The film has been reviewed fairly extensively by the media that covers this genre (links are included and a Google search will bring up more). And the fact it is in commercial release from one of the most celebrated distributors covering the genre would seem to contradict any perceived lack of notability. I think the previous reference WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't fit at all. A film that is widely reviewed and is in commercial release is notable. This small film's cred checks out. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage's improvements (sources to reviews) to the article that verify the notability of a B-class, but still commercially produced, genre film. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not been paying attention to the notability of films. Have we adopted a guideline? Unfortunately, the link above points toward the Wikiproject. Cheers, 70.126.47.211 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)<< Dlohcierekim 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)>>[reply]
- That's a common mistake, you're right that WP:FILM refers to a WikiProject. The notability guideline for films is shortcutted as WP:MOVIE. Sorry for the confusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Dloh cierekim 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response More links added, including the Rotten Tomatoes database entry for the film. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Premier League relegation

An orphaned article, which is already tagged with {{context}} and the information of which is already provided in the individual Premier League seasons articles but also in one place at List of Premier League seasons. This is little more than a content fork unless more information about relegation can be added. Peanut4 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killing My Darlings

For an album that was released today, I'm still finding no sources — perhaps it was pushed back? I can't verify the track listing in a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, straightforward failure to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails this line in WP:MUSIC - "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Artist has an article but this release does not appear to have any reliable sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. PeterSymonds | talk 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donk (song)

No sources claiming single; non-notable song Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NN. --Danreitz (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof that it's a single, no reliable sources pertaining to it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources for this crystalballing. The song itself is non-notable .--Damiens.rf 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just keep it as a song not a single. You people like hate me WTF? Making an account to Wikipedia was a bad choice for me =( User:SPBLU —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not hate you. Don't take things personally. You need to show the notability of this song. Has it charted? Has it received independent press coverage? If you can show this, it will help the chances of it surviving. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BALL. asenine ^{say what?} 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Shopoff

Cites a couple sources but they're not really substantial. Borderline spam for The Shopoff Group, which you'll notice is a red link -- and possibly a red flag too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and its redirect pages as no notability is demonstrated aside from being the founder, president, and CEO of a non-notable company.B.Wind (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One article IMHO does not meet the requirements for reliable sources, since WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sasscer

(delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK, fails WP:RS, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:COI, fails WP:N, fails WP:V, fails WP:SPAM, fails WP:single-purpose account, and so on and so forth. Google throws up a palty 21 hits, [4]none of which can be considered WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very close to G11 advertising. Not one library has the one book he's published. A list of books with one published book on it is a new low. DGG (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks;

I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.

If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.

He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...

How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?

Everett

UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider. Thanks.

EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no indication of passing WP:BK or WP:BIO, nothing found in a search of Google News Archive. EverettGee, promoting a new author is not what Wikipedia is all about, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:BK and WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all vanity pages. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Parent Education Program

Non-notable training program by non-notable creator; no reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. B.Wind (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context (is this a local program? published in a book? sponsored by a government?), no sources, no reason this is any different from the many parenting programs for children with disabilities. I am moving the personal appeal to the Talk page; it has no apparent relevance to the article's deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very unclear from the text of the article what the subject of it actually is. No references to clarify the situation either. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - unanimous consensus for deletion. In addition, no convincing evidence was presented that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE, particularly that he has played in a fully professional league. Separately, reliable sources were not cited to attempt to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (English Footballer - Striker)

I originally PROD'ed this article about an English footballer on the grounds that he had never played in a professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. At that point an additional claim of a brief professional career was added to the article. The additional claim is that the player played professionally in South Korea in 2004. Given that for 11 months of that calendar year he was only 15 years of age, I find this incredibly hard to believe and can find no sources whatsoever to support it, whereas surely an English schoolboy travelling to the other side of the world and winning awards playing against grown men in a league which hardly any (if any) English players have ever played in would have garnered lots of coverage. Although the PROD template was not removed per se, I'm going to treat the addition of the extra claim as a disputing of the PROD and am therefore bringing it to AfD ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that that the subject once played in Korea is unverifiable and likely false given that the subject would have still been at school! The only content that is verifiable is that he apparently signed for Leek Town in January 2008 and has played for Maine Road and Alsager.[5]. On the that basis, clearly not notable and fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above --Jimbo^[online] 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove link from Chris Smith, I consider this unsourced claim of playing in Japan as a WP:REDFLAG and in my efforts I cannot WP:VERIFY it, and have found information that contradicts it - his own page on a social networking site, which is a bad source so I have not provided a link. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the K-League claim is a hoax. On Leek Town's unofficial website, his penpic reads "CHRIS SMITH: (19, Striker) Forward signed from NWCFL side Maine Road in January 2008. Chris has also played for Alsager Town." Surely if he really played in the K-League, it would have been mentioned here, especially seeing as the former league teams of other players are mentioned. Bettia ^(talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Good nomination, good rescue. Fram (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor signs

Is this subject sufficiently notable to require an article separate from the Sign article, in the community's opinion? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ er, no, not notable. Next we'll have Wet Paint Signs, Closed for Lunch signs, Your Dinners in the Oven signs. Somebody's having a laugh : "Historians of the Roman period point to the introduction of wet floor signs (approximately 220 B.C.) as one of the main causes of the decreased rate of ankle-sprains among Romans..." - yeah, right! Camillus 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge After removal of "wit", I'd go for a merge/redirect with Sign, as suggested in nom. There's only so much you can say about a "wet floor sign". Camillus 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, if it hasn't been already. This made me crack up and the history is amusing, though yeah, it's just a safety sign, not that much notablility. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter nonsense. Someone save a copy though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per removal of Uncyclopedic [sic] content, and per likely addition of verifiable, encyclopedic content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Not even very funny. --Boson (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I beg to differ... "It is believed that wet-floor signs were first used... at the dawn of the floor age..." "Because the Germanic tribes to the North had not yet developed floors, they had little use for a sign that would declare a floor's wet state." Funny stuff. A regretful delete, as Wiki-satire. Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete Could be a publicity stunt for staples.com, see purchase link at end of article. Notability has been demonstrated here, and any commercial intent removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate with Out of Order tag. Deor (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the article on the Floor Age grows to such as size that it needs this part spun out. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the humor is removed, there will be an appropriate stub which can be expanded with the available reliable sources. The present article is full of nonsense, but these signs satisfy WP:N on the basis of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Just do a Google book search for "wet floor sign". Most books on managing restaurants [6] and other property as well as on patient care [7] include at least the instruction to place one whenever there is a spill or a floor is mopped. Many legal textbooks discuss the clear negligence of failure to place one of these leading to a slip and fall lawsuit ["Business Law and the Legal Environment" by Ronald Aberdeen Anderson (1999) p 163 A Google News search shows scads of legal cases, starting in the 1980's, about accidents resulting from the omission of these signs [8] A book on warning signs contains over 130 words about the "wet floor sign": its effectiveness draws upon implicit knowledge in the average person that such a floor will present a slipping hazard, so that additional information may be omitted “Handbook of Warnings” by Michael S. Wogalter, p420, (2006). In sum, stub the article, but do not delete it. Reliable sources exist to create a short encyclopedic article, which might later be expanded to discuss the litigious climate of the late 20th century which resulted in the ubiquity of these little bilingual signs. Edison (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're right, Edison, that a well-sourced and encyclopedic article can be written on Wet floor signs. It seems pretty obvious to me, though, that the current article is a witty little hoax. The article could be stubbed down to nothing, with some good sources put in to help someone start a real article on it though, I suppose... Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it might be out of line for me to delete 99% of the content while it is up for AFD. But if it is deleted and then recreated, some people get heartburn about re-creating a deleted article, even when there is virtually no overlap and the re-created article has refs. One solution would be a paragraph in the Sign article with the refs (that article is presently unreferenced. These are more accurately Warning signs, but that article is focussed on traffic signs, with only a little paragraph mentioning all non-traffic warning signs. Edison (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, as one of those people who gets heartburn over recreating deleted articles on notable subjects, I'd still have no problem with this one being deleted, because, really, there's nothing "real" there to recreate... It'll have to be written over from scratch either way. Dekkappai (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, if you do decide to write a good and properly-sourced article on Wet floor signs, Edison, I'd be happy to change to "Keep." Personally, I can't get myself worked up into doing much research and writing on the subject though... Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hazard symbol might be another candidate for merging into, though it might be better to create an article on something like "Hazard signs" with a disambiguation note regarding traffic warning signs (posssibly moved to "Traffic warning sign" or "Warning sign (traffic)".--Boson (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and scholarly. If the article is currently imperfect then we improve it. Deletion is not an improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my "Comment/Delete" above to Keep in light of the Colonel's removal of the hoax/satire, and sourcing and starting the article out as a serious stub. Tough work, Colonel, but someone had to do it! Dekkappai (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing from my "Delete" above now that nearly all the (inappropriate) content has been removed. I would be equally happy or happier if the article were merged with an article including other hazard signs/symbols.--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, should the article be moved to Wet floor sign (singular), when the deletion debate has finished?--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. I'll do the page move now on the assumption that the closing admin will almost certainly keep this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARRIORS, (Script Series).

Contains lots of what appears to be Original Research, and it does not appear to be notable. Gary King (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. I can't believe the article has even lasted this long. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it veers close to speedy delete territory. It could be a hoax, it could be something made in one day, and this article should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Versus Square

Non-notable comic, only in one publicaton; no reliable sources, author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:N, WP:V, etc. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability - if anything, just the opposite. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources, with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Average Australian Yobbo

Non-notable album, issued only in concerts; no reliable sources, et cetera. If this is deleted, please see that Category:Kevin Bloody Wilson albums is deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per addition of sources. Looks much better now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The article could use some work, but I found several reliable Google hits. Anthony Rupert (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? All I see are download sites and forums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I didn't realize those were download sites. Delete then. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music#Albums, which states: "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The sites provided above do not meet this criteria. PeterSymonds | talk 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unlike his daughter Jenny Talia, Kevin Bloody Wilson, while not quite a household name, is fairly well known in Australia, and while not my cup of tea, his albums sell reasonably well amongst his target demographic. For "reliable" sources are probably best found by looking through old editions of quality publications like Picture [9](what, no article!) and People. Given the nature of the material and the target market, (a subset of anglo, working-class Australian men or less politely Bogans), it is unlikely that reliable sources will be found, hence the weak keep; but I would take a punt this has sold many more copies than most of the Australian albums with articles on this encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- valid album release by a notable Australian artist. - Longhair\^talk 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Longhair and Mattinbgn. The Aria awards only started in 1987 and he won best comedy album in that year with the successor to this album. Google hits are not a reliable guide to notability for 1984. Even when it comes to downwload sites - he is a notable artist when it comes to downloading -see for example this article authored by Agence-France press. I suspect the download of his album is notable too - not totally sure where to go for sources on download statistics or sales - the artist claims sales in excess of 300,000 copies for this album [10] - how does one verify Australian album sales?--Matilda ^talk 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing any reliable third party sources anywhere. Download sites are not an assertation of notability. Most keep arguments here are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:USEFUL here, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) states In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The artist is notable - winner for example of an Aria award. Not sure what "officially released" means. He has it on his website. You can download the album in lots of places. I don't know what sources you would have access to for a 1984 release otherwise. So the notability is based on the artist. I note also his assertion that 300,000 sales for this album - more than most albums on wikipedia. I don't know how to independently verify the sales figure but I don't see why it should be a lie.--Matilda ^talk 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album was an official (re)release, sold widely in popular music and department stores at the time. As Matilda says, the artist is notable, this is just one of his many releases, perhaps even his first. -- Longhair\^talk 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be fine with a merge to the comedian's page. There doesn't seem to be enough standalone notability for the album itself (heck, I can't even find cover art anywhere). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art is now included within the article. -- Longhair\^talk 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict times 2) That is was officially released is supported by http://www.aria.com.au/pages/ArchivedAustralianReleases-April2002.htm - released on CD by SMA This link indicates it is a Sony Music release http://www.sonybmg.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=BBCD90797R It isn't my taste in music! but I think it deserves a place on wikipedia. Cover art can be found on the Sony page and on the Bigpond download page and ...--Matilda ^talk 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone notability is claimed sales in excess of 300,000 --Matilda ^talk 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that he managed to sell over 22,000 copies purely at venues and by mail order, resulted in his signing with a major record label is a notable achievement. The resultant second album subsequently winning an ARIA award. The fact that the album also managed to sell in excess of 300,000 is a notable achievement especially for what was essentially an independent release. Dan arndt (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top-selling debut album from a notable musician and comedian. --Canley (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:MUSIC for unreleased albums. No prejudice against recreation if sources found that confer notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Togetherland

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided. Three reliable sources found [11][12][13], all are mere mentions. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial mentions of this unreleased album in third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds Guyer

Note: Page moved to Reyn Guyer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwikified résumé, possibly copyvio, no notability asserted besides "development" of a few games for Hasbro; this may or may not be a notable role, depending on how involved he was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn I didn't know he was the inventor of those games; the fact that I didn't know his common nickname was also quite the impediment in finding sources. I have cleaned up the article, and I feel that notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The inventor of the NERF ball and Twister (game) is certainly notable, and there are numerous Google Books and Google News Archive results that corroborate that involvement. I don't know about any of the rest, but he's clearly a notable toy inventor. Move to his common nickname Reyn Guyer, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that helps. I didn't know he was nicknamed Reyn, so that made for few reliable sources when I searched. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7 (non notable band). Also qualifies as a PROD delete, as no one commented here after 6 days opportunity to discuss, improve, etc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scred connexion

Non-notable rap group, seems to turn up very few, if any, sources. None of the albums appear to have been on significant labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Format

~~Doesn't seem to be a notable rapper. A few semi-notable collaborations but no reliable sources present.~~

~~Also, his albums, which seem to fail notability guidelines:~~

~~Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn per addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear if the nominator followed Wikipedia guidelines and made attempts to search for sources prior to AfD nomination. There does appear to be enough from just a search on Google News archives to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed try to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for suggesting that you might not have. Meanwhile, I've been adding some more sources. DJ Format has had a fair bit of press, including album reviews in major UK newspapers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable according to the current draft of the article. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as an extensive copyright violation of http://www.ashram.org/newweb/aboutashram.html weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Sri Asaramji Ashram

POV fluff piece about a non-notable Indian charity leader. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that i need to add more references, but still windering how is it a 'fluff piece' ! Rohit Agarwal —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a non-notable Indian charity, I could not find independent sources in English language, although a minor citation in Indian Yahoo news. Also the blog and self-reference to Wikipedia current sources used in this article are unreliable. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A most tragic story, but fails WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#News. PeterSymonds | talk 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhianna Hardie

A tragic yet non-notable story that is non-encyclopedic in nature. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a tragic news story. WP:NOT#NEWS --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much more suitable for wikinews.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Rmhermen. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S Tobin

Vanity page about a place kicker. No notable and the only reference redirects to MSN groups. Macy (Review me!) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 per tag already on page. No assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caledon, Second Life

Non-notable region in Second Life. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does nothing to suggest why this region is notable, and I don't see a big wave of articles on other SL regions, either. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Sorry, this is a stub, and my first article. should be working on it in a sandbox, apparently. The region is one of the top visited location in Second Life, and is a strong center of SL culture. What is the best way for me to proceed to build the article without it being flagged? Librarianavenger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on fleshing it out and improving citations. Thanks for your patience. --Librarian Avenger (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of real-world notability. Did find a handful of passing mentions in reliable sources [14] but nothing of any substance. nancy ^(talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, as "real-world notability" is only half the question here. As Librarian Avenger said, Caledon is one of the most significant, if not THE most significant regions in Second Life not specifically owned by Linden Lab. It has grown enormously within a very short period of time, and is the crest of the wave of the growing interest in steampunk even outside of the usual genre niches. Caledon has developed a strong community which extends beyond Second Life itself. Merely because of its virtual context, it should not be delegated to some bin of "notability" merely because a handful of people have not heard of it YET.

This article can get fixed up, it just needs some time. Yes, I will admit to some bias as I am a part of said community, but in this case it merely means I can see where it can be a significant reference better than those who have not even visited. The significance of 3D immersive environments has yet to crest, as well. Corgi (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the significance of 3d immersive environments has yet to crest, then this article is about a non-notable subject, and it can be deleted until it becomes notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - real world notability is all that matters here. If the only assertion of notability is that it is the most significant region in SL, then merge to SL. It only gets its own article if it is notable on its own. -- Mark Chovain 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District. - Philippe 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe Middle School

Delete nothing to show that this middle school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the school's website has the stuff for showing notability (school in 50th year of operation, first school in the state to have the "campus" format rather than a single building, etc.), this article has never been expanded, and has been an attractive site for vandals. I conclude that the school officials would prefer their internet presence not be on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and who can blame them? Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the first two reasons given by Mandsford. Not having been expanded isn't a valid deletion reason, nor is being a vandalism magnet. I've added the article to my watchlist, so vandalism won't be a problem any more.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Not having been expanded would be a valid deletion reason in this case. Bear in mind that middle schools and elementary schools are not considered inherently notable, and that if the text of the article does not demonstrate some type of notability, a delete will follow. As noted, there seems to be enough information here to make a good article. I'm not going to try to fix it up, because I figure that if nobody at Tuckahoe Middle wants to maintain an article about their school, why should we do so? I'm glad that someone is keeping a watch on this, however. It's likely this debate will be relisted, and if the article has become more substantial, then it probably could be kept. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I still don't think not having been expanded is a deletion reason. Lack of notability certainly is a deletion reason, but doesn't automatically correlate to lack of expansion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Henrico County Public Schools per ample precedent. User:Vegaswikian 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District until enough reliably sourced content justifies a break-out article. If we restrict articles in fear of vandals, this whole project is doomed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford. School does not appear to establish notability. Wizardman 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge. A quick search shows that the school has gotten attention for some of its policies such as wide use of computers. [15]. But none focused on the school itself. That article for example mentions the school as one of a variety of schools attempting such policies. It might be possible to write a stub on this but right now I'm having trouble. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peopleahead

Unremarkable website, reads like an advert Stephenb (Talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete spam. Czolgolz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly spam. Note that editor Peopleahead (talk · contribs) has clear COI and is probably a username violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-spam JuJube (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The article has been so tagged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli

Delete nn minor royal without anything notable that he has done - notability is not inherited Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this article, but from my impressions of reading the article, it should not be deleted. Sufficient referencing is given, and the article does not contain nonsense. Keep. Hamletpride (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Containing references and not nonsense is not the standard of judging biographies for notability, see WP:BIO. And I don't regard the referenced website to be in the nature of a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm don't see anything about this guy that would be considered notable even by those Wikipedians who are in awe of royalty. Like all other royals, this person goes to the bathroom in the same manner as you or I. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Esther Kapiolani Kawananakoa, his mother, for now. She is one of two disputed heirs presumptive, and when she passes away (her two older siblings already have), that honor could fall on him, or on one of his five cousins. At that time I would consider him notable enough for an article. See House of Kawananakoa#Heirs Presumptive. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted There are many stubs like this about minor royal figures. There are only 12 living members of the House of Kawananakoa left today on the line of succession to the Hawaiian throne.

209.244.43.99 (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stub, being in a line of succession, no matter how small, does not make one notable. Delete Esmeralda Kapiolani Marignoli and Teresa Elelule Marignoli. We are not a genealogical repository. Charles 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, then redirect to Ring Ring (album) - Nabla (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw It in the Mirror

Non-notable song, not the subject of any reliable third party sources. (Does anyone get the idea by now that I've been clicking "Random article" a lot today?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim to notability here is arguably not enough to thwart speedy deletion; the lack of refs for anything seals the deal. Merenta (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ring Ring (album) as a person may remember the song but forget the album that contains it. B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitasia

No reliable sources on this film; Humanitasia on Google turns up 144 hits, nothing relevant among them. Tagged for factual accuracy since March. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be unverifiable. I note that the article's author also created the bio for this film's supposed producer, Jon H. Rexel, which suffers from the same verifiability issues (now proposed for deletion on that basis). I'd be surprised if the article on The Wheezer Bros. wasn't similarly problematic. --MHGW (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references anywhere, except for clones and descendants of the WP page. Strong possibility of a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: as probable hoax. By the bye, Rexel and The Wheezer Bros. are also up for AfD now. RGTraynor 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Guiney

Lighting designer. Declined speedy. Sole reference is a "case study" (advert) on lighting manufacturer's site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO. Reference makes one mention of the subject and is more concerned with lighting and I am unable to find other sources. TN‑X-Man 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and orphaned. Macy (Review me!) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The article quotes Dara Guiney at length about using a new innovative product that has won awards.Disclaim (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of reliable, third-party sources with significant coverage, as needed to establish notability. I've found nothing on Google Books or News archives, and nothing apparently usable on plain Google. Jakew (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage, no awards means no WP:BIO passage. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Manon Dave. Please do not modify it. The result was "speedy delete as hoax content". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Haupt

Delete. Minor 9/11 skeptic. This article is made by the subject (see this google search) so obvious WP:COI and WP:AUTO is present. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also wonder if a better image of the subject for the lead can't be found. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deletion seems to be warranted, since imho the author is (ab)using this page as a self-adulating curriculum vitae. Also, being a public nuisance doesn't quite equal celebrity status or justify having an entry at Wikipedia. -Rittmeister 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notablity not established. Almost all sources are blogs, etc. except for an interview in German.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonnotable. In terrible shape and not worth fixing. Kalkin (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i would like to know why you deleted my name Nico Haupt from 9/11 conspiracy theories / No Plane thory ? It was there for years ! Also why do you block a discussion about google 1649ish ?

I'm also not a "minor 9/11 skeptic". I actually coined that term which is still used in England and created the whole 9/11 Movement with the first organisations and research groups !

I met Morgan Reynolds several times and he was influenced by me, Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable.

I have 2 imdb entries and worked once with Christoph Schlingensief ! Do you wanna delete this too ?

What is wrong with you ? Ewing2001 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)ewing2001[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, doesn't provide 3rd party sources to alleviate concerns. If sources are found, happy to undelete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful

Doesn't seem to be a notable band in any way -- no major label albums, no third party sources, etc.

Also listing their albums, because if the band fails WP:MUSIC so does their material:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also a couple redirects to some of these pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% Millennium Hits

Non-notable album compilation. None of the other albums in this series have pages, and there don't seem to be any sources pertaining to the entire series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any chart information for this New Zealand compilation. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. I'm loathe to make new policy or clarify extant policy here. My strong preference is that this discussion go to the Village Pump for clarification.. - Philippe 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2004

I thought we weren't allowed to have pages for individual dates like this. This info is redundant to March 23 and 2004. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete March 2004 contains all of this information. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I went back and forth on this. There are several categories (Category: Days in 2003 and Category:Days in 2004) that are filled with nothing but pages like this. Is this an instance of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Maybe. But I think that the sheer number of pages of this type mean that this one can stay too. TN‑X-Man 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't there a page for March 10, 1987 (On this date, User:TenPoundHammer was born)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, sir. I checked a little more and I think 2003 and 2004 are the only years with individual days listed. I think this may merit further review, per 23skidoo's suggestion. TN‑X-Man 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been getting further review. See my note furthyer down this page. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very very 90-lb weaking keep. Although I agree with the nominator's rationale for nominating, the sheer number of articles out there suggests that I guess we are allowed to have individual day articles. I personally feel they're redundant, however I see no point in singling out just this one out of the dozens if not hundreds of similar articles. A review of policy, or a policy proposal (if one doesn't already exist) might be the way to handle this en masse. In answer to TPH's well-said comment above, maybe they haven't gotten around to that date yet? 23skidoo (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very big comment - this is transcluded into March 2004. It seems most months before about 2006 are done in a similar way (more recent ones transclude Portal:Current events/Month Inclusion). I think there are January 1, 2003 to July 31, 2005. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete There may come a day when Wikipedia has a project of documenting individual dates, with 36,524 or 36,525 articles to document every day of a particular century. I'd personally favor that, but I can understand the reasons why it isn't done (such as vanity additions). Until that does become policy, the convention is and should be to cross reference this under March 23 and under 2004. Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm still concerned, though, that all this AFD will accomplish if a Delete decision is made is removing this single article. There's still a full category of individual day articles, which based on volume alone places this into a different category that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Is it possible to do a mass nomination of so many articles? The March 2004 example is definitely the way to go on this - but what is the policy or is there even a policy regarding this sort of thing? 23skidoo (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before this debate goes much further, can I ask you all to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All info in March 2004. This may cause problems with confusion and duplicate information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the discussion. So far, there's no indication that the door will be opening anytime soon to articles about individual days, although there apparently has been an acceptance about articles about individual months starting with January 1999, but not before-- probably a reflection of the myopic nature of Wikipedians who came of age in the "era of breaking news". Going to what 23skidoo says, I don't have a problem with nominating similar articles for deletion, for the sake of consistency. November 22, 1963 or July 20, 1969 or September 11, 2001 can become redirects, while the notable information in most other date articles can be merged. What articles do exist probably date back to a few years ago when Wikipedia was taking just about anything. As Joe Friday said about marijuana, change the law if you don't want it to be a crime. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now—I can not support a delete on this until we have a consistent policy on all entries under Category:Days in 2004, &c. Removing individual dates from the set while keeping the remainder seems illogical.—RJH (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's any indication that this article is part of a set. Mandsford (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into March 2004.-- danntm ^T _C 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - events on particular days can be notable (December 7, 1941, March 5, 1953, etc), but the days themselves are not. Every day is another 24-hour cycle of the Earth around the Sun - will we be seeing June 21, 402 or December 18, 62782 BC anytime soon? The only exception I can think of is if (hypothetically) a certain day lasted 25 hours, or marked the end of a calendar era, or something intrinsic to it rather than to the events that took place then. This is not the case here, so let's delete. Biruitorul (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a 25-hour day once every year, and a 23-hour one, too - or do you not have daylight saving where you live? Grutness...wha? 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're quite right. Make that 26 hours. Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all individual dates provided there are several verifiable and notable things that occurred on that date (obviously no December 18, 62782 BC, and almost certainly no June 21, 402 either). These articles are useful collections of info that assist in providing chronological context. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything happens on some date. That doesn't make the date itself notable. In a few cases (12/7/41, 11/22/63, 9/11/01, etc), the date does become etched in the collective consciousness. But I'm sorry, almost no one remembers this specific date. (And even if it were remembered, we could easily redirect to the event.) Which leads us to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. We are not here to document every short burst of coverage. For "what happened on a particular day?" type queries, we have day articles (January 1, January 2, etc) giving the most notable historic events that took place on that day. For people interested in a specific date, newspaper archives handle that sort of thing (or actually, month articles like March 2004, of which this is simply a fork).
- And another point: what about notability? Where are the "multiple independent reliable sources" discussing the significance of March 23, 2004 qua March 23, 2004 and not as a function of the events that took place that day? We can't just wave that away in the interests of "providing chronological context". Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that enforcing that standard is the biggest problem in keeping this kind of article. Either there should be a decision on the part of Wikipedia to give inherent notability to all articles about individual dates in a particular period (such as 20th century) or the policy continue that no individual date merits its own article. The least attractive alternative is the one where between 10 and 20 people weigh in on whether they think a particular month/day/year in history is notable. The original policy choice on this was wise. I think it's presumptuous of our small group to decide that "March 23, 2004" was important, but that "March 24, 2004" was not. On the other hand, there's no denying that there were verifiable and notable things that happened on March 23. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other articles for specific dates within its category, keeping those for the months of the form "XXXXXX 2004". We have been going through a boatload of deletion discussions of redirects of specific dates at WP:RfD; I'd recommend going through there (the latest set is in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3; the original set with the justifications for deletion is in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 19. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we subst: the pages in, we can make them redirects but cannot delete them. This is due to the GFDL. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Lynn Cole

Doesn't seem to be a notable actor; only source is IMDb. Only roles are cameo appearances and/or red linked films. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cheese Sandwich (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I trust IMDB's accuraccy, and according to that she's played leading roles in several movies (albeit lesser-known movies). IMO that's makes her notable enough for inclusion. -Cheese Sandwich (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

The above points were taken directly from WP:ENTERTAINER which is a threshold for inclusion of actors. Which one of those points would you say the subject of this article satifies? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the first and second. As to the first, she's starred in several movies cataloged in IMDB = notable IMO. Also, a google search shows many articles about her. She stars in a DVD being sold on Amazon (here). Look, I understand you guys are determined to delete this article, but it won't be because she isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article (unlike wikipedia articles about these notable topics: Horcrux, Misty_(Pokémon), or Adam_Hart). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese Sandwich (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mean to argue with you and I apologize if it seems as though that's what I'm doing but I just want to make sure you actually understand what notability means in Wikipedia terms. If you want to claim that the subject of this article meets the first of my above listed points of claimed notability, then the films catalogued on IMDB would also have to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) since she's required to have had roles in notable films, not just films, and I can't find a single one of her films in which she has had a major role that can quialify under Wikipedia:Notability (films). Again, sorry if I'm coming across as overly polemic but IMDB ≠ Notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I'm just an inclusionist when it come to wikipedia, so my standards of notability are looser that others'. In my opinion (though not necessarily according to wikipedia official guidelines at the moment), published films sold to mass audiences = notable. Anyways, I've stated my reasoning behind my "keep" vote, and if I'm outvoted, then that's the way it goes. :) --Cheese Sandwich (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only mentions in Google News archive is a couple of tangential mentions in UPI stories so she doesn't seem to be quite notable enough. [16]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster, as I was about to say basically the same thing. Jakew (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VaultLedger Tape Management System

Non-notable product. Declined speedy for G11, so taking to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PRODUCT. If the company making the product has its own article it can be included there. Does not warrant its own separate article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product, spammy, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article; "sister article" about company offering this has been speedied. B.Wind (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Cranes

Speedied six weeks ago by myself; restored per request from article creator, former member who would like to make a case for band's notability under our criteria, an opportunity I promised him. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matches under allmusic or metacritic. First two refs in article are passing mentions (of the type "oh yeah, A Thousand Cranes is playing too"), next two refs are the band's sites, last ref is a blog with a very short entry on the band. Gsearch isn't finding anything else. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fabrictramp. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One premedical study outlining properties of onions one hand, and indications of traditional usage that are not backed up by reliable sources on the other hand, do not allow for an article on a therapy . As suggested below, incremental addition of material elsewhere might be possible keeping in mind editorial policies but also that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Juice Therapy

Potentially pseudo-science talked up to sound like medicine. While some information is backed up, a lot of the rest sounds like an advertisement for a new-age treatment, with potentially dangerous statements and vast quantities of POV. Drivenapart (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does need some cleanup (and a spellcheck) but most of the issues raised by the nominator are fixable. This appears to be a notable element of Sufi natural healing, with the references provided to support that (nom. admits that some data - and I'd argue the core data - is backed up) so I don't see a reason for deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There may be enough for a mention in the article on Sufism, but there's hardly enough notability for a standalone article on Onion Juice Therapy, especially given this article's inevitable promotional nature. MastCell ^Talk 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so. Not even close to notable, as far as reliable sources are concerned. With the exception of a single promotional Cornell press-release, the references are blogs and personal websites (and my own independent search found nothing more reliable). In deletion-relevant language: delete per lack of verifiability in reliable sources that address this particular subject (not just "onions" but "onion juice therapy"). Antelan ^talk 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The majority of the article does not appear to be written from a WP:NPOV. There is a WP:COI issue with the creator/main contributing editor who has a strong personal interest in the subject (see website [17] and Talk:Onion_Juice_Therapy). The article also has WP:NOTABILITY issues. Although there are sources for onions having anti-cancer properties [18] I can find no independent reliable sources for onion juice therapy per se. See Google scholar results. The deductive reasoning - that because onions have anti-cancer properties therefore onion juice is an effective treatment of cancers - sounds like WP:OR to me. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A brief look at the cited sources says it all - blogs and NewsMax. There's nothing encyclopedic here, and no useable sources. It's not attracted enough mainstream attention to qualify as notable under WP:FRINGE. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that most of the sources used aren't reliable enough, but there is at least one which is, the Cornell release. I don't think it's a blog or NewsMax. -kotra (talk)

Comment I doubt a single press release is sufficient to establish notability. What's more, the press release has a link to the journal where the study is, ostensibly, available - but there is no sign of that article on the journal's own web page. Now, that means I can't read the academic article itself - but I have serious doubts that a proper scientific article would act as a sufficient basis for a stand-alone article on "onion juice therapy". It might make sense to include a brief discussion of onions in flavonoids. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press release cited by JamesMMc from Cornell University refers to peer reviewed articles in various journals . See; [19] also cited on Pubmed [20]. I have access to the articles if anyone want to ask questions. Nk.sheridan Talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the press release is not about onion juice therapy, nor are these papers. As you mentioned above, and I certainly agree, there is a WP:SYN that occurs in the jump from a discussion of the components in vitro and their effects on humans as a therapy in vivo. Antelan ^talk 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with your argument (at least, in this case the single press release doesn't support the claim of an onion juice "therapy", and that leaves us with basically just an individual folk medicine technique, which probably doesn't deserve its own article), so I've changed my "vote" from "keep or merge" to just "merge". -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Strong KEEP - DIRECT SCIENTIFIC QUOTE: "Our study of 10 onion varieties and shallots clearly shows that onions and shallots have potent antioxidant and antiproliferation activities and that the more total phenolic and flavonoid content an onion has, the stronger its antioxidant activity and protective effect," says Liu". From Cornell University. PROTECTIVE EFFECT!! This is a new user who has felt attacked and instead of working on the article has had to spend all of his time figuring out how to defend against multiple attempts to delete this article on the basis of opinion, not facts - before it is really ready to be judged. THE FACTS remain clear - Onion Juice Therapy is hundreds of years old and there is a wealth of information in reputable books that are written in Farsi, Urdu, Arabic and many other languages. It is widly understood in Islamic medicine. This long standing practice is now fully supported by hard scientific FACTS presented by one of the leading universities in the US, Cornell University. Books like The Medicine of the Prophet have attempted to translate some of these more important works and will be included - as new information will be added supporting this important therapy. In an effort to respond to some of the concerns raised the article has been trimmed down to it's basics. Those who ask for deletion should be prepared to answer for the lives of those who may not be able to afford expensive medical treatment or those who have educated themselves in the dangers and wish to try something natural. Lives are in the balance. People should be afforded the opportunity to see these age old advices and methods. JamesMMc (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) — JamesMMc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: I'm sorry, but are you really saying that anyone who deletes this article has blood on their hands? Because that would undermine your credibility fairly severely. Please peruse WP:NOT. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blood On Hands: If, Onion Juice Therapy is a safe, affordable and an effective treatment that cures cancer and people's prejudice or narrow thinking prevents it from being considered by the thousands of people who can either not afford the expensive for profit medical treatments or simply do not wish to expose themselves to chemo and radiation - as there is plenty of information that would suggest these treatments to be more barbaric than useful - THEN YES - I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands. It is your credibility that is in question if you think otherwise. Conversely, if this treatment is unsafe, ineffective and I keep pushing it because I have some bias or vested or hidden interest - then the blood will be on my hands as well as the responsibility for having cheated people. JamesMMc (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, please peruse WP:NOT, particularly the section headed "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - ~~As per Zahakiel. Article suffers from exaggeration and POV, but those aren't valid reasons for deletion. Seems to be notable. If not keep,~~ merge with onion, Cancer#Complementary and alternative, and/or Unproven cancer therapy (where I see a link to Onion juice therapy, so this article wouldn't be orphaned if it had the correct title). (changed vote from "keep" to just "merge" due to current lack of enough reliable sources for its own article) -kotra (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can believe that some chemicals in onions show potential anti-cancer properties in laboratory studies, and I can believe that there is an Islamic tradition of using onions. But onion juice as a treatment or therapy for cancer doesn't follow from any reliable source in the article. The author's obvious emotional attachment to the subject has led him to stretch a few facts into something beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article should be in terms of original research and notability. However, perhaps some of the info based on reliable sources can be merged into onion or unproven cancer therapy (as suggested above). Peacock (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peacock. This is pure WP:SOAP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~note that WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOAP aren't in and of themselves reasons for deletion. If it fails due to the deletion policy, that's another thing.~~ -kotra (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He referenced User:Peacock, not WP:PEACOCK. User:Peacock made the Delete arguments immediately preceding Nomoskedasticity's Delete argument. Antelan ^talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. My comment is pretty useless then, so I've struck it. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't know which one he was referring to until I clicked through and saw the bird itself. Antelan ^talk 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT. I figure claiming that the article is pure soap works pretty well as an argument for deletion: it is an instance of what Wikipedia is not. FWIW, I agree as well with the claim that there is no notability here; MastCell's description of the sources is right on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now that WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT, and thereby a good reason for deletion if it's just soapboxing with no reliably sourced notable content; that's why I struck my entire comment, not just the first part. I still disagree that there's no notability here, though, and MastCell's description doesn't seem to consider the Cornell reference, which looks like a reliable source to me. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to this appears above, cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source that one researcher has found phytochemicals in onions which inhibit proliferation of cell lines in a Petri dish. That's a preclinical result, and the authors are fairly clear (in the discussion section of their article, which incidentally is PMID 15506817) to emphasize that the in vivo effect of these phytochemicals is unknown, and that any health benefits are speculative. The same author has looked at cranberries, black beans, apples, and tortilla chips in the same manner and reported similar findings (check PubMed). To take this one paper from 2004 and its in vitro findings and create an article on "Onion Juice Therapy" is textbook WP:SYN. My point is that the cited source, from Cornell, says nothing more than that onions, like many fruits and vegetables, contain chemicals which inhibit cancer cells in vitro. That's worth a footnote in onion or phytochemical, but not a whole article on onion juice as a cure for cancer - the source makes nothing like anything remotely resembling the claims for which it's being used in this article, and it certainly says absolutely nothing about "Onion Juice Therapy". Again, textbook WP:SYN. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a strong argument. This particular source alone is not enough to carry an article on this subject. There may be other sources that can, (for example some of the citations in this article might have some merit, if verified by someone, but as the article stands right now, it's probably not good enough. I'm changing my vote from keep to just merge. -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under WP:FRINGE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MastCell. No reliable sources exist establishing enough notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Yilloslime (t) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Change the tone of the article. Place the therapy in historic and regional/cultural context based on reliable sources (no blogs or promotional booklets), then end with a section that briefly indicates what modern science says (onions contain certain substances) and doesn't say (high quantities of these substances cure cancer). Delete if no reliable sources are found, otherwise decide whether to keep or to merge with onion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are still faced with the problem that there are no reliable sources for "onion juice therapy". The path you propose might be fruitful as a way to approach the issue briefly within other articles. But I still see no grounds for an article bearing a title that includes the word "therapy", the way this one does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Aside from topic matter itself a few issues with the article to point out:

This article created on 7th May after similarly named Onion juice therapy (note the lower case cf Onion Juice Therapy) was speedily deleted on 5th May (I think)
WP:MOS would be quite clear that the article name is wrong to use title case and Onion Juice Therapy should be Onion juice therapy - but no point renaming until this AfD discussion completed
See WP:Orphan - the article is not cited by any other mainspace articles

RESPONSE: The articlehas not been up for more than a few days!— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008

Also note, if this article had correct capitalization (Onion juice therapy), it wouldn't be orphaned, since one mainspace article links to it: [21]. -kotra (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for discussion is whether the topic matter is notable or not. That evidence based medicine might reject the approach as unfounded or even disproved scientifically, or even therefore dangerous for its denial of proven treatments are not the issues here. Wikipedia is not about our western views of "truth" (ie not WP:SPOV) but rather WP:NPOV which permits significant minority view points. As such, us conventional medical adherents need to consider this article not as to whether we might think is a good idea or potentially dangerous for people to follow, but whether there is a non-trivial minority who adhere to this approach - i.e. we should treat the article in same manner as say homeopathy or traditional chinese medicine. So comment above of "Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so" is not in itself a good argument for AfD - I personally have this same real-world view on homeopathy, yet would staunchly support the inclusion of homeopathy article here in wikipedia if that were nominated for AfD. So, IMHO, the two issues are:

For this AfD - is Onion juice therapy an established non-trivial approach taken in Sufi culture ? If so then the topic should be included in wikipedia (with suitable change in article name capitalisation)
If the topic merits inclusion, and this AfD dismissed, then there are quite separate issues as to WP:NPOV on claims of effectiveness, WP:PROVEIT, WP:cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify etc etc. Quite honestly if a fringe theory seems so wacky as to not merit significant mainstream medical research, then the lack of dismissive mainstream research does not tip the balance of how WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight should apply to the article - mainstream assessment would still apply as predominant position of the article.

So what's my view on this AfD ?

Onion intake or use of extract as a cancer prevention (as per the Cornell University reference given) is quite separate from the use of onions as an active treatment after cancer has already become established. So, being therefore tangential to onions as a active therapy, probably largely needs removing from the article (if article name were Onions as prevention and cure of cancer, then would be on-topic vs off-topic).
Overall AfD - I'll reserve judgement for now as I would be swayed if some WP:RS could establish it as a non-trivial alternative/Sufi-cultural healing/medical practice (otherwise for the chop).
I've left a heads-up on WP:ISLAM to see if other editors with knowledge of Sufism culture can help us on these issues. Especially relevant, I think, is MastCell's useful pointer to WP:FRINGE - I suspect pendulum currently for deleting the article, but it would be good to know if it is swinging in a vaccuum or if their is anything substantial in the way of the wrecking ball :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Weighs In

To help illustrate the possible Islamic/Sufi Traditional Medicine bias here. this article used the template of Juice Fasting as a basis for it's creation. I do not see anyone weighing in on that subject article. It is a near duplicate to the Onion Juice Therapy article in presentation, POV, intent, etc.

If this was an article in the German, India, even Japan Wikipedia - no one would call this therapy non-medical. There is an enormous amount of work pointing to the benefits of raw naturla juices. The pharma industry has usurped these age old remedies for decades - have taken plant (natural) cures and have effectively stolen this knowldge and then made synthetic poisons that they can patent, own and profit from. The trend is moving the other way - NATURAL is best. Here is just one ofhundreds of examples out of most people's frame of refrence.

"The prophet used to “prescribe” food for ailments even more than he prescribed herbs or medicines. The Prophet used everything from barley soup to honey to camel’s milk to heal his followers and advised them to eat certain foods to prevent or cure other ailments. In fact, food is one of the oldest and most respected healing tools available to man. Even the first fruits of paradise - the apple and/or the pomegranate - have hundreds of curative properties (Yeager, p.21). The Chinese and Indian healers have used the properties of food to heal for thousands of years.

What is new is the medical mafias approach associating profit (not Prophet) with healing. Depriving people of this information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility. People should be free to choose for themselves. Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what is best for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008

Oh dear. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMMc, (to perhaps explain MastCell's succinct reply), the Wikipedia:General disclaimer (link provided bottom every page) states "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area." and so Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer states "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE" (in bold no less) and your threat of "information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility" is a gross breach of WP:AGF and our WP:Civility codes, for as the medical disclaimer continues, "None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site." If you can not work within these guidelines then you need to question whether wikipedia is a place you can work within. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#MANUAL - we don't instruct readers. Finally your statements of "I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands" or conversely of "then the blood will be on my hands" are both untrue - the medical disclaimer concludes with "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine." - so no blood on anyones hands, and that's official policy. David Ruben ^Talk 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building further on David Ruben's comment, it's of course one of Wikipedia's goals to have as accurate information as possible on all subjects, including medicine. But anyone who relies on Wikipedia for life-and-death medical information is.. well, I wouldn't say they have it coming, but it's not a smart thing to do. -kotra (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin award, perhaps?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onions contain flavonoids which have an important function in mopping up free radicals and therefore limit cell damage. There are, however, lots of other natural products that contain similar flavonoids. I think that, while this is indeed a known therapy, the article should reflect this. As it is, the reader has no clue as to why onions may have a positive effect. Does the positive effect keep increasing as we consume more and more flavonoids? Hardly, there is a study on dark chocolate that shows a saturation effect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What ? You mean there is a limit to the amount of scrumptious dark chocolate I can claim is medicinally allowable - bummer :-) David Ruben ^Talk 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think one needs to be very cautious in extrapolating from a theoretical benefit to claim that a substance prevents cancer. The canonical example is beta carotene, an antioxidant which "mops up free radicals". There was preclinical and epidemiologic evidence (incidentally, much stronger than that for onion juice) that beta carotene supplementation would decrease the risk of lung cancer. However, several huge, fairly well-publicized human trials later, it's become apparent that it's either ineffective or (more likely) actually increases the risk of lung cancer in smokers. It may well be that flavinoids "mop up free radicals" and that this translates into a reduced risk of cancer, but jumping from epidemiologic or preclinical studies to that conclusion is a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is just one factor that may play a role, and research has not advanced far enough yet. What I'm thinking though is that it may explain how this therapy historically came to be. Perhaps there was a lack of flavonoids in the general diet of that time and area. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the webpage on Sheikh Nazim (1997), Natural Medicines, Traditional Sufi Healing Methods, eventually points back to this Wikipedia article, so it can therefore not be used as a source. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highwinds Network Group

Contested prod which will eventually arrive here. Seeking debate, improvement if poss. No opinion as yet. AndrewHowse (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider allowing the Highwinds Network Group article to remain. I created the article to help educate interested parties about one of the growing, well-funded content delivery networks. If you reference the Content Delivery Network article, several CDNs are listed. Each of them has a Wikipedia article as well with basic information about the CDN. Some of these are smaller companies with smaller networks and less funding. When I originally created the Highwinds Network Group article, I included much more information such as links to national press about Highwinds, listings on industry websites, blogs, and partner pages, and information about partners such as Adobe and Microsoft. When the article was marked for deletion, I went back and edited it to mirror the types of information on the other CDN articles. I figured that way it would be kept up just like the other company's articles. I recognize that I am new to Wikipedia and as much as I have studied the rules and am trying to learn the correct procedures, I think I may need some help. Please let me know the types of information that should or should not be included on this article for it to not be deleted. I am happy to make the edits that you recommend. Thank you. Wjmoore (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see links to stories about funding, and I see a couple of lists. The lists of Adobe/Silverlight partners aren't really helpful here. What you need is some references to establish notability, in order to meet the requirements of notability of companies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are only a handful of content delivery networks in the world. It's an important tech subject, and any such company that obtains $55M in funding is pretty notable by definition. The coverage of the funding event in major publications (e.g. Red Herring) illustrates the point. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these are included in the article (thus meets WP:N). I would like to ask the nominator the rationale for nomination, as it is not described in the nomination. Is it being contended for lack of notability, or for other reasons? Arsenikk (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Rationale is that this page has a chequered history, including deletion for expired prod on 4 May, subsequent restoration as contested prod after the creator inquired at WP:EAR, and in my view some marginal notability issues. I brought it here to force the issue. One can contend that AfD shouldn't a forcing house for improve or delete, but it works to achieve that much better than anything else. Original creator has added more references to enhance claims to notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient notability in the references. However as written and without inline citations the article is a bad read. However that is not a reason to delete, just a reason to cleanup. Maybe after a rewrite with citations the picture will be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lille gaarbe

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; disputed prod which is not a candidate for speedy deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and as unsourced neologism. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merenta (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Ultraexactzz, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxonym

Word created by the author of the article, not notable. Drivenapart (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has the appearance of a vanity page with the creator of the word writing his own article. No supporting citations of word notability or accepted usage. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Violates WP:MADEUP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does have the appearance of a newly coined word, but that does not qualify for speedy deletion. It is not an "obvious hoax". No verifiability, no reliable sourcing, no Google scholar hits. Dloh cierekim 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am going to decline placing a redirect, since "Johnston street" must be a very common street name, and redirecting to just one of the streets with that name will be confusing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston street

Unsourced article on a street with no indication of notability other than its status as a segment of U.S. Route 167. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The article's title gives no clue, but this is a four-lane street in Lafayette, Louisiana, and there's a proposal to fix its traffic problems and there's a group on the other side called "Save Johnston Street". Someone felt that people outside of Lafayette, Louisiana, would want to read an online encyclopedia article about the issues involved in road construction that may or may not take place in the future. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N as presented. Edison (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an independent article, but preserve page history and redirect to U.S. Route 167, of which this street is a portion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammo-screening

OR Essay, not an encyclopedic topic. SGGH ^speak! 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear case of OR. Scog (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if this is a likely search term (I lean towards not), then redirect to Mammography.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An OR and POV essay. Nsk92 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We dont have to decide on the scientific truth, but this article is certainly a one sided POV fork essay. DGG (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, synthetic essay. Aleta ^Sing 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, POV, WP:SYN; the list just rolls on. Merenta (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly WP:OR essay which doesn't maintain a WP:NPOV. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Farias

article fails to establish why this radio personality, among thousands, is notable. No reliable sources provided. Rtphokie (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news turns up one article making trivial reference to subject and other than that nothing. A google search didn't turn up anything indicating notability. Wik-e-wik (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Business Value

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried to create a factual page and not just marketing. I understand that others may not see it quite the same but explaining what is wrong on the page would really help - just deleting doesn't. We tried to follow the same sort of format as other Wikipedia pages for Institutes (like [22]). Just deleting the page doesn't give us a clue as to what is disliked on the page. If it is that we are adding an entry for a commercial organization, again, I see lots of others on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibvposter (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cleaned the article up some and wikified it. It seems notable enough, but it is in desparate need of some cited reliable sources for verification. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some news articles about the company's work at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Institute+for+Business+Value%22&btnG=Search+News and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Institute+for+Business+Value%22 On the basis of these references, I think the company is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where Eastmain says "some" he means "408" Google news hits. Also 113 Google books hits, with the first listing a book entitled, Creating Value with Knowledge: Insights from the IBM Institute for Business Value . Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. Thisis a major IBM multinational project. DGG (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junichi Fujisaku

Fails WP:BIO. Unnotable director of video games with no significant coverage nor major achievements in the field. Collectonian (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a non-notable video game director. Coverage in outside sources is lacking. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. He may be notable in his own field of work, but that field isn't wide enough to ascertain notability per the guideline. PeterSymonds | talk 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems to me that the subject's chief notability is as the director for the Blood+ series rather than the video games. He also appears to have authored 3 light novels based on Ghost in the Shell. While I understand the nomination, I'd argue that the Blood+ connection meets the "significantly involved in the creation of a major work" criterion of WP:BIO as the anime did make it over here and was nationally broadcast on Adult Swim. There is also a live action film in post-production scheduled for released at the end of the year. Xymmax (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any notability of Blood+ does not pass down to him. Collectonian (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the "significantly involved in the creation of a major work" bit? By that logic there should be no article on George Lucas because the significance of Star Wars and Indiana Jones doesn't pass down to him. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has significance from having significant coverage in a larger number of reliable sources. Having made a contribution in one somewhat notable anime series does not equal his being notable. He doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Collectonian (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since when were directing an anime that aired on US television and writing novels that were translated into English not more than enough notability? Doceirias (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aren't animation directors or script writers considered "generally notable"? -- Taku (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As a director himself, he hasn't accomplished much in his career; however, he has directed games sold to the general public. I say merge into the Production IG article due to lack of credible information to support it as a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one mention of game in the article; he's primarily a screenwriter. Doceirias (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Not a strong enough consensus for deletion, particularly since soruces were brought up toward the end of the debate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeSuki

Fails WP:WEB. Unnotable website that has been tagged for notability since March with nothing added. The only two non-primary sources do not mention AnimeSuki at all. It does not have significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. No evidence of secondary sources verifying notability per the guideline, and the external links on the article go to similar sites. There's not the secondary coverage required. PeterSymonds | talk 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG because it only describes the site's services. There are no truly independent sources which describe any greater significance, such as impact on fan subbing as a community. Xymmax (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa ranking 3286 [23] 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. This article does not demonstrate notability per WP:WEB and there is really no place we can merge to. Sasuke9031 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune states that it is "the largest database of BitTorrent anime shows". [24]. No opinion on this debate though. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with above mentioned coverage by Mailer Diablo and more extensive coverage by Anime News Network. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] --Farix (Talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheFarix and Mailer diablo. A mention in Fortune is a mention in a non-tech non-anime oriented very mainstream source, and the constant ANN coverage certainly says they think animesuki is notable. --Gwern (contribs) 17:40 11 May 2008 (GMT)
Huh. Looks like Gwern's right -- keep per links demonstrating notability. (Wasn't expecting that, to be honest.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those in favor of keeping did not provide third party sources discussing this person, and one editor who originally supported keeping changed their view when they could not find any such sources. If someone thinks they can find sources and wants to work on this I'd be happy to userfy the deleted article, but right now this fails WP:N. (Both versions will obviously be deleted).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lissanne lake

Some fairly weak claims of notability for this illustrator. She certainly exists, but not convinced she warrants an article. Unreferenced for a year. Probably a weak delete as the article stands. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been noted below that this artist has two entires, however the other entry is not tagged. I have now tagged the other entry since clearly any decision regarding this article should apply to that almost identical one as well. Debate (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not convinced" is a poor reason to bring this article here. I am familiar with her work and know where to find sources. Here are some references to start with: [30]. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am bringing it here for discussion, thats what AFD is. If you and others can convince me she's notable, I may change my mind. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is supposed to be a last resort. The first place to discuss an article is on its talk page and this was not done. Also the article is a fairly new one and you have not tagged it for improvement first. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - New? Created on 16 April 2007. Tagged? Its been tagged for wikification since May 2007. Come off it. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake - I was looking at the month more than the year. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is this the same illustrator listed here? If so, I suggest a merge into that article, which does makes claims of notability. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same person. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:BIO. Borderline, as there's certainly a body of work in widely distributed sources (Tarot art, Magic: The Gathering cards, SF/Fantasy Book covers and the like), but I can't find sufficient commentary, even within Fantasy/SF circles, to reach the level of prominence required by WP:BIO under "creative professionals". At least one commercially published book of her art (other than the Tarot, which is by her, not about her) might have swung me the other way. nb. All the sources provided by Colonel Warden above are book covers, which are only examples of her work, not evidence of notability. The Lissanne_Lake article, which is clearly the same person, does not appear significantly stronger to me and my vote would be be for that to be nominated for afd as well. Debate (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO. This site does it all for me: [31]. It explains that she has become significantly notable in her field of work, and her work has been the subject of exhibitions. PeterSymonds | talk 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site lists some of the book covers she has illustrated. Other websites indicate she has illustrated over 80 covers total. ~~I say to keep this article (apparently I forgot to "vote" above . . . oops) and add references.~~ Tnxman307 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I note above, I think this case is borderline, but evidence of output does not imply evidence of notability, nor under normal circumstances would fan sites or simple lists of output fulfil WP:N. The question is notability, not wehter the artist exists. Debate (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh . . . I just took my own suggestion of adding sources and spent thirty minutes looking for them. I can't seem to find any. I guess I'll change to delete faced with an apparent lack of reliable sources. I'll admit when I'm wrong. Drats! TN‑X-Man 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Debate. A working illustrator with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. freshacconcispeaktome 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Debater etc. Clearly a successful working illustrator, but does not meet WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Debate's excellent reasoning. I have no further points to add to his analysis. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exists but not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems basically unexceptional...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, repeated use as a cover artist on a magazine with a circulation of over a quarter million (Dragon) is prima facie notable. Third-party references may be hard to find, and this must be rectified to keep the article, but Lake is not unexceptional in her field. --Yamara ✉ 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Apostasy

This article is just a plot summary of a fictional universe. That's not acceptable under WP:PLOT. No sentence beyond the first is outside the fictional perspective. Graevemoore (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason to keep it around. Article has been transwiki'd. I suggest redirecting to Warhammer 40,000 or Imperium, but really that's just to prevent clean up of links. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About 500 hits on Google and first few pages were entirely forum postings and game fansites, which indicates this topic has not been covered by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Additionally, the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context or analysis. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:PLOT. Another worthy alternative: merge useful parts into Warhammer 40,000, which currently does not mention this at all. B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a consensus for deletion. The page has no independent, reliable sources and, most importantly, the key information in the article fails WP:V. Finally, there is the point that most of the content is copyvio from the subject's website. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Pacific Airways

Unsourced article with dubious information. Multiple sources can't be found which would afford this non-operational "airline" notability inline with policy. If such a company does exist it would be more of a travel agency or air broker, not an airline company. There are also conflict of interest concerns given the article creator has the username ipaph (which so happens to be the companies not operational website address) Россавиа ^Диалог 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems it did exist per this however based on the current website here (and lack of information on it) and the fact that there is no other info out there on the airline it fails notability guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Similar to a book, not everyone always has access to "the information." However, the source (a link to the website) is quite relevant and clear. When a website is no longer available, please check internet archives such as "The Way back machine". In this case we're lucky because we have 3 archived crawled version of the website here. Furthermore, the archive indicates that there are trademarks. This is a major hint that there is "other info" out there on the airline, not including the airlines government documentation and call signs, which meets Notability guidelines. Again, just because "you" can't access the information doesn't meen it's didn't or doesn't exist. Please remember this when writing an article so we, Wikipedia, can maintain historical accuracy in all levels of our work.

Comment The mere existence of a callsign does not provide notability and the existence (and in this case the non-existence) of a callsign should not, and not, be used to determine whether an entity is notable. Furthermore, inline with WP policies, articles can not be written by utilising sources wholly from the entity on which is being written about, meaning that the existence of a website some time ago does not provide notability. Additionally, as you have provided the link to the website (and yes, I already regulary use archive.org to obtain information not found elsewhere), the additional reason of WP:COPYVIO is now also raised, as the article is a complete word for word copyright violation of the website. The destination list has been removed completely by myself as there is absolutely no evidence that this entity ever actually flew a single flight under its own AOC (the non-existence of a callsign would be an indication that it has not, as this is a norm for flights which operate between international destinations of which those countries are members of the ICAO). Aerotransport.org states that this entity was a failed project between 1999 and 2002, which means it never got off the ground, and anything else from the airline website is merely self-promoting huff and puff, e.g. just where are these 747s it supposedly got? And the A300? I also find no evidence it ever took delivery of any 737. And this opinion of mine has been formulated by doing extensive searches of sources which are available (including a couple which I have special access to). Hence my nomination for Afd. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete as per nom - search on specialised aviation websites fails to find any evidence of aircraft operation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I found no references that established notability. Google News and News archives searches for references turned up zero hits that could be used as references. A Google web search turned up <40 unique hits. If this new airline is successful, then it may get some reliable sites that can serve as references for a future second article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability.-- danntm ^T _C
Keep - part of Philippine aviation history. - DaughterofSun (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article improved, even the nominator has switched over to the keep side.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie McGrath

A ~~3-lines-long~~ article about a fictional character. Contains no real world information expect actor's name and years of appearance. Fails notability per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Article was deleted after prod expired and revived after the deletion was contested. Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody strong keep. I've just this second restored this as a contested prod per WP:PROD. I would point out to the user this is perfectly acceptable and is part of the process, and that prod is not a contest. To my mind this article is needed to understand Damon Grant, an article I have just reworked after the above user prodded it. I would redirect it to a list, but a suitable list which would house the information does not as yet exist. List of Brookside characters needs expansion before it can house the necessary information, and the information to expand it is currently being removed from Wikipedia through deletion. Hiding T 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd settle for a redirect to Damon Grant, but that doesn't really allow for an exploration of the character. Hiding T 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, further thought springs to mind that the best solution is merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie. Hiding T 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think this is a WP:HEY case. I didn't know that you were planning to improve the article since you didn't contest the prod as you did in another case. I just noticed a contest to the deletion. I'll withdraw this AfD even if I still believe it would be better if you create an appropriate article in your sandbox first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the prod, and so contested it after the deletion. It's not soi much that the article can be improved upon, I just don't feel the deletion is the answer for the problems this stub causes. The character has some greater notability through the plotline to which she is central, and a merge and redirect better suits ouor purpose and the reader's. Hiding T 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPS. A search for the character does not revel any real world notability. The only mentions I found were on fan websites. If the information is needed to support another article the information should be merged into Damon and Debbie or Damon Grant. There is no need for a separate page on her as the information can easily be contained in one of the other two articles. The character is also covered in Gillian Kearney. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my reasoning up above. I'm stating that some sort of coverage of exactly this sort is necessary to form comprehensive coverage of both the soap opera Brookside and the notable character Damon Grant. Further, the character appeared in another notable show, being Damon and Debbie. The character is discussed in a number of reliable sources, the references at Damon Grant will attest to that. Also, please note we don;t delete per anything but editorial consensus. I am asking you how we best fulfill our remit as per the five pillars. To my mind that is best done through a merge and redirect. If you agree, could you please strike out your delete comment, since it is not in keeping with a merge and redirect. Hiding T 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep if expanded, otherwise redirect to Damon Grant. I agree there isn't enough material here, and it does not explain that the role was significant. Now, I've never seen the series, and from what I've read I never want to, but I have tried to help Magioladites sort out the articles, working in a cooperative way with him despite a different general take on this sort of article. So I have carefully read the articles, and worked on the following basis. First, it's a very major series historically in the development of the genre, as is well explained in the main article. Consequently, the major characters of continuing important plot lines will probably be discussed in some detail in the various popular literature of the time--which is relatively inaccessible being pre-internet and poorly indexed. They therefore are appropriate to separate articles. A series of this nature is probably better defined by the characters than the episodes, so the character articles can be substantial. For the minor characters, who were not the focus of major continuing plot lines, I redirected to the List of characters in Brookside, an article which needs expansion to say a little more than their name. If anyone ever writes the articles, justifying their notability, then they can be expanded. For the trivial ones with transient appearance, the projects guidelines say they should not even be redirected, and I agree. If anyone ever finds material to write articles showing some notability, they can be written. (There are a few works, like Shakespeare's plays, where every named character does have critical discussion over the centuries, but this will be quite rare for a work with a very large number of characters & I do not think applies to this series.) Based on the remarkable array of good sources Hiding found for the Daemon G article, which required more than "looking at fan websites", he can possibly do the same on this. Whether it can be separate from that article depends on what he finds--I suppose it would depend on how distinctively she was characterised. and I wouldn't know that from the present article. Hiding, what do you expect to find? Is she presented just as a non-specific girlfriend character? I've gone into some length here because I think it presents a middle-of-the road approach to dealing with these articles. I am not a strong inclusionist in this area--and, for that matter, neither is Magioladitis a strong deletionist. (This has nothing to do with my interest on the subject. if I had my rathers, these works would never have existed, and then we wouldn't have to deal with the articles.) DGG (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The character falls into a grey area. There's some coverage in reliable sources, but the character's notability is, dare I say it, "inherited" from being vital to notable plotlines of two highly regarded television shows. That of Brookside and that of Damon and Debbie. The latter is regarded by some as the first British spin off, not a great claim to fame, but one that has been commented upon. The former was, during the period the character appeared, held to be influential within the television industry. The character also inherits notability from her relationship to the notable within the United Kingdom character of Damon Grant. Given that there are three possible places to merge, my feeling is that we allow the stub "as is" to better inter-relate. However, I grant that is not going to be the consensus option. My preferred outcome, indeed where I posit the middle ground should be, is to merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie, where the information can better sit inside a "wrapper" of an article on a notable topic of which the character has a central role and information on whom affords a more comprehensive approach and allows a deeper understanding in our readers. I too am not a strong inclusionist in this area, however Damon Grant still exerts some hold on national consciousness to the point that only last year a Member of Parliament mentioned the character to illustrate a point. Hiding T 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:FICTION is just a proposal and SOAPS is just a guideline for members of some WikiProject. It should never have been prodded for failing a proposal in the first place. Prod is only for non-controversial deletion candidates and the reams of text on WT:FICT show that FICT is anything but non-controversial. --Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the fact that all the useful information (actor's name, years of appearance) is already in List of Brookside characters change things or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no notability. Graevemoore (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brookside, Damon and Debbie and redirect. There's nothing either in the article or available in the most prevalent sources to suggest that the character is somehow notable independent of the works. If there were some scholarly analysis or something about the subject that could be used to assert notability, than that would be different; however, no such material exists, or at least hasn't readily presented itself to me. As such, I think the best course of action would be to merge it to the appropriate parent articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The array of sources available for Damon Grant indicates to me that material exists to expand this article. A merge discussion should take place at the relevant talk page. Catchpole (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of merge can we perform in a 3-line-long article? Actor's name, character's name and years of appearance already exist in the list of characters. That she was Damon's girlfriend can be found in Damon's page. Is there anything else important in there? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal merge, to preserve the GFDL. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no valid reason to keep an unreferenced stub on a television character who has no notability as a topic outside of the TV show she was a part of. That's what character lists are for; the number of TV characters who actually merit their own independent articles is very slim indeed (and generally on the level of The Simpsons, Star Trek or Doctor Who, i.e. the show is so notable that its characters are actually household names even to people who've never seen the show at all.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the reasoning, don't see how deletion follows on from that though. Any reason why you don't agree that a merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie would be of use? That's what I had intended had I been given about 2 more hours. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the rewrite, I will now suggest this be Merged ~~Delete~~ per well-formulated nomination and also what Bearcat said, with which I am in more or less complete agreement. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to direct my comments to Bearcat to you as well, if you have the time. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let Hiding take care of it. He knows what's best in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten

I've rewritten per sources I've managed to find. Hiding T 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to excellent re-write. Bravo! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rewrite which I think is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the changes I think we can give this article a chance. We can keep it and hope that more improvements will follow. The references given are a good start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion. There is some evidence that the term is used but the key content of the article, in particular the claim that the term was coined by Robert Young, is unsourced and fails WP:V. Incidentally, the page looks as though it was produced as an advertising vehicle for Young's work. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computography

Seems to be a term invented and used only by one person DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; if there were an article on the Robert Young of the article, we could do a merge, though I'm not sure I'd do a redirect. As far as I can tell from Google, it's a term invented by several people and used in several ways.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Avi (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright International

I don't see why the original prod was removed. The two "government links" added are just poorly-formatted directory entries for people providing health care related services. It no more establishes notability than to show that your business is listed in the Yellow Pages. Article does not really assert notability, except that it says it has 500 offices, but that doesn't really mean anything.

If the article were rewritten so it wasn't an advertisement, this might be borderline acceptable for inclusion. Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found two sources writing about this organization; this one says it has 'several offices in the Lancaster area,' doesn't confirm 500, and I wouldn't call the source's coverage nontrivial. I couldn't get through to this college paper article; maybe someone else will be able to access it. The article is blatant advertising, and this is one of those businesses that pretends to be a health clinic in its advertising, but is really just counseling against abortion. I think those places are pretty shady, but some of them are notable- I don't see evidence that this is one of them -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. If it reads like an advertisement, rewrite it as an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you find sources? The only one I found indicates that the claim of 500 offices may not be true, and I couldn't find any that showed notability. We'll need to add your sources to the article... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I use Twinkle to do all the listing, article creation, etc., and it seems like every now and then it misfires and I get a malformed/incomplete nomination. I'll try to remember to double-check it in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Birthright has a significant presence in Canada and the US. Because it's a Pro Life organization it'll be hard to find entirely NPOV sources, but that's the nature of the beast in such a politicized area. Debate (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the suggestions to "improve" the article and clean it up so it's not an advertisement... Well, somebody's gotta volunteer to do that if we are going to keep this article. This group might be notable enough to include in the encyclopedia (I am not yet convinced, as nobody has offered even a sliver of a reliable source, but for now I'll take Fg2's and Debate's assertions at face value), but as it stands now, this article hurts Wikipedia. If somebody doesn't volunteer to fix it up, we simply can't let it stay. See WP:HEY. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup myself. I still am not comfortable leaving the article unless we can get some kind of secondary source talking about how big they are and what they do. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a clean-up... your edit caused an edit conflict but mine uses mostly new text from secondary sources so I went with it, although it's still poor. As I note above, there's no shortage of sources, although finding any with NPOV is tough. Debate (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new version. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is good to the point I am considering retracting my nomination. I wish there were a "Criticism" section. The Crisis pregnancy center article has a criticisms section, which mentions Birthright, but the source they provide does not specifically mention Birthright, so I am uncomfortable adding it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs a criticism section. I tried finding a quote from something half-credible, but weirdly, I wasn't successful. Of course, it's 1:30am in the morning here so if I'm missing something it wouldn't surprise me. I'll have a look again tomorrow, but anyone who tries to beat me to that before then would be well regarded. Debate (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination My WP:HEY concerns have been mostly resolved. The lack of unbiased sources is still a problem, but the article itself is pretty npov now, and at least tries to be encyclopedic (despite some questions about the sources). I have started a discussion about improving the balance of sources on the article's talk page. --14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep especially as it is now.-- danntm ^T _C 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rooseboom de Vries

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

Lack of third person sources and notability WP:BIO, Dwanyewest (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is credible 3rd person sources to support statements. Otherwise delete Dwanyewest (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Subscript text}

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources cited, image links corrupted (I'd delete them, but it's part of a bigger problem), and that's just what I've noticed before I actually tried to read the article. It might be better to delete now and start anew when the requisite citations finally arrive... if they do at all. B.Wind (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard Sjolander

Where are the third person sources for notability? WP:BIO,WP:RS Dwanyewest (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problems tagged in January, nothing improved since then. No evidence of any notability, no sources. Fram (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree lack of notability and no credible third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is custom that you don't !vote on your own nominations. It gives the impression that there are currently two persons agreeing with your nomination, while in fact only one editor has responded. If you do need to reply, it is better not to bold anything in your response, or to indicate it as a comment or so. Fram (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see that several people have called for the content to be merged, but they don't give much reason for doing so, and they have not addressed at all the nominator's concern that there is no such concept vehicle (which causes a severe verifiability problem, especially when the article is unsourced). If anybody thinks the content of the article is useful enough to be merged in some way, please contact me or another administrator and the content will be provided, if contacting another admin, just point them to this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Allroad Quattro Concept

DELETE - article title was factually incorrect, in that the article deals with merely a new generation of the existing Audi allroad quattro, and not a concept car. To leave this article is misleading, and will cause confusion. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to the audi allroad quattro article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Audi Allroad Quattro. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and the above, it's a valid search term _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because it was never a "concept" as reported in the article. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derbism

I removed the proposed deletion tag from this because deletion had previously been contested, but I agree with the prodder's reason for deletion: "no independent reliable sources for this alleged philosophical approach [32][33]. Current references are to unreliable blog sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as swiftly as possible. Not only is this article totally unsourced from reliable sources and of extremely dubious notability, as noted above, but it is also an apparent WP:COATRACK article containing a myriad of extraordinary claims about and criticism of two and more living people, including a presidential candidate. Full disclosure: I was the second prodder. Is a prod really considered contested when the editor who first tags it changes his/her mind? Anyway, looking at this more thoroughly I think it should be deleted sooner rather than later, and an AFD and the opinions of other editors here may actually facilitate this, so thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prod was first removed by a different editor, not the tagger,[34] so it was validly contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. I missed that.--Slp1 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited; no hits on GBooks or GNews; the only relevant Ghits are blogs (and don't cover the subject in detail anyway). I'm not even convinced this is a unified theory or framework; it seems more like a synthesis of stereotypical liberal beliefs for conservative bloggers to use as shorthand. ("Liberal" and "conservative" in the typical American sense.) 199.8.47.12 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source is a blog. Doesn't appear notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, term does not appear to be notable or in wide use. We already have an article on John Derbyshire which more than adequately covers this topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article is a recreation of a validly (and repeatedly) deleted article.. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Delaney (party boy)

16 to Aussie bad boys make big news with a AUD$2000 wild party in his parents home. But is he notable? Are we party dudes or squares ? Triwbe (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 11:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we delete this article while we await the result of this deletion review? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOBJ: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Frank | talk 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stubbified as the negative claims lacked inline citations. Deletion review probably a more appropriate forum rather than evaluating the work of an apparent newbie. Andjam (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of a deleted article. Article has been created and then deleted in numerous other forms previously - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Corey_Delaney_discussion for details. Possibly a CSD G4 even. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Is G4 for previously deleted content, or is it for a previously deleted topic? Andjam (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Content, not topic. But the content doesn't seem to be markedly different from what I remember in the old articles. There was also precedent last time around for speedying Corey Worthington as a G4 after Corey Delaney was deleted. Either way I don't really mind, and I don't think the article is obnoxious enough in its present state to warrant a speedy if that speedy would be even slightly controversial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    - Additional note: the salting for the Worthington article states that "Controversy makes clear this should not be recreated without consensus to do so.." Given that the DRV for that article (per User:Mattinbgn above) seems to be heading for a no consensus at this early stage, I would assume that a consensus to create an article on this person does not exist at the present time.
Delete The page has been deleted I believe twice through AfD, and there is now an ongoing debate at deletion review to restore this article. Delete the article for now until the deletion is overturned. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fleeing notoreity. Anything useful can be in an article on the incident. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Corey Worthington is an international celebrity; that one event was just the beginning of his rise to fame and he has since then done a lot of things. There are plenty of articles about people on here who were only married to someone who wasn't at all notable or famous. Doesn't getting married count as a single event? It's pretty obvious that the only reason this was deleted is because some people don't like him. You can't possibly deny that he's a lot more worthy than other people with articles on here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus that notability has been established. Also, as an FYI, WP:FILM is a shortcut to a Wikiproject. WP:MOVIE is the notability guideline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race: The Power of an Illusion

Lack of notability and fails WP:FILM criteria. Enigma ^message 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the nomination difficult to understand, as the article contains sources that demonstrate notability. Could the nominator please expand a bit on the reasoning behind the assertion that there is a "lack of notability"? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in passing by two articles. I don't feel that demonstrates notability. Also, this fails WP:FILM in my opinion. Enigma ^message 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not mentioned "in passing". Those articles are about this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You're right. I still think it should be deleted, however. Enigma ^message 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a show i would hate and could only watch if i believed a gun were being held to my head. Nevertheless, the show is notable and the article provides the evidence. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article demonstrates notability.Wik-e-wik (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Scientizzle 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Spike

I have serious concerns about this article. Wikipedia is not a TV program magazine. Moreover, there is an unreferenced section called " Movies shown on Spike". Eventually, all new films will be shown so this is equal to have a 2004-2008 film list. All important information is already om Spike (TV channel) and this a useless article. Creator's rationale for creating this article is "This list kept getting deleted from the Spike TV article, though I believe it is important to have a list of this nature available, since there are several shows that were originally first shown on this network that are now no longer on television at all, including several animated series, and some imports." (from the Talk page). Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically not an indiscriminate list of information. This is fan trivia, possibly interesting but not notable and not encyclopedic, unless it's an encyclopedia of television or the like. Regarding the shows that were originally shown on Spike, that info could go in the Spike TV article. Frank | talk 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I am sympathetic to the nomination, it is fairly well-established now that one of Wikipedia's goals is to be a TV Guide. See Category:Lists_of_television_series_by_network. I agree that the content needs to be largely eliminated as unsourced, and would suggest that if it remains unsubstantiated, it be redirected back to the main Spike page. Eusebeus (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we decide to keep it, at least the Movies section should be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just silly. Madman (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This articles is just a very large list, which runs afoul of WP:NOT#DIR, specifically point 3, which mentions electronic program guides. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category Spike TV network shows simply needs to be expanded with links added, as this is simply the indiscriminate list of blue links. The lists are worse than useless. The dates aren't listed on the "former programming", and I'm not sure that the so-called "network for men" has been televising Alice, Cagney and Lacey and The Waltons in its less than five years as "Spike". The list of movies is just plain sad, even if the point is that these are manly man films -- besides the fact that nobody cares, Spike puts on a movie just about every day. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The programs you mentioned aired during the network's time as The Nashville Network/New TNN. Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's exactly what I figured. In answer to the question below, since there isn't any information about what aired when, I don't see how one can separate out the stuff from The Nashville Network and The National Network. It's a poorly written list. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the programs that aired on Spike, but cut the movies and anything that aired during the Nashville Network/TNN era. The only thing similar between the two is the satellite slot they took.Nate • (chatter) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize, without the movies this list is provides no added value, and is best handled as a category.-- danntm ^T _C 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is plenty of precedent for lists of programs aired on a national network, including the major broadcast networks: List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by NBC, etc.; and cable/satellite networks: List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel. See also Template:Lists of TV programs by country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. This list on The Futon Critic is a good source to verify this information as well as many news sources. The movies should be trimmed down to those which either were originally aired on or produced by Spike, or perhaps those where the Spike broadcast was notably important to the movie's popularity. DHowell (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone wants to start trying to improve the article (and the source identified by DHowell would be the means to do it), then I would strongly urge a keep. On the other hand, if nobody cares to try, let this one die a manly death. As we've seen, the person who first slapped this together didn't make the distinction between programs on "The Nashville Network" and the shows that actually were shown by "Spike", so this article was flawed from the start. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST, information and navigation. I figured I better do a little work after what Mandsfor said, so I added a few refs and cut the film section way down.[35] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Peregrine Fisher's cleanup. Matthew (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too many precedents to ignore here, but even after Peregrine Fisher's excellent work, there's more to do here. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Tuesday

Un-notable occasional meeting in a pub. Clinton may or may not have drunk or inhaled in the pub (no evidence provided) but that does not confer notability on the gathering of Scholars. No references that Turf Tuesday exists or is in itself notable. Petty student rivalries between different brands of scholars is not encyclopedic. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The traditions of Oxford are obscure, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. This event does seem to be regular, established over a number of years, and to involve a well-defined and notable group of attendees. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK; where is the Reliable Source that this is an "event [that] does seem to be regular, established over a number of years, and to involve a well-defined and notable group of attendees."? Reading below; this is a practical joke to which some well-meaning editors have given too much benefit of the doubt. TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling "Turf Tuesday" Rhodes (web or books) returns no relevant hits. Of the articles two references, one is original research and the other mentions Turf Tavern but not Turf Tuesday. This article is either a hoax or not verifiable. Either way, delete. Debate (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything in the world is on Google. Is there anyone here around Oxford who can go and document it in the wild? Naturally in a way that doesn't infringe WP:OR Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also searched Expanded Academic ASAP, Academic Search Premier(EBSCO) and Google Scholar. So far zero hits from about 7000 academic journals. "Documenting it in the wild" sounds suspiciously like OR to me. Debate (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a social networking event. Why should it be in an academic journal? As a social networking event amongst people who have a greater than usual likelihood of becoming US president, that's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The traditions of Oxford are obscure, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable." I whole-heartedly agree. Any of the members of the gathering itself are likely to count as "notable" under Wikipedia criteria. I also agree that the world isn't on Google. This article (which I did not create) is, in fact, an attempt to document something patently notable on the internet for the first time. Wikipedia should be proud of this. 163.1.7.205 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is the source that supports this comment, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources means that it fails WP:V. It's as simple as that. We're not in the business of "documenting" anything "on the internet for the first time." Deor (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly are in that business, if the object is verifiable from outside the internet (you remember that place, the big blue room?). Now it's a narrow line between needing credible refs and no OR, but Google isn't the only spurce of knowledge. For one very obvious example, not necessarily relevant here, books are still a valid reference sources.

Now, has anyone found Turf Tuesday referenced in newspapers? That's one likely source for a credible reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you've registered a "keep" opinion, you must have some information on how this satisfies WP:V. I'd be interested to see it. Deor (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Turf and found it full of preppies. Enquiry showed it to be "Turf Tuesday", which stuck in my mind because of the dot-com connection. Some years ago mind. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your personal experiences don't satisfy WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course it doesn't, you asked for information on why I voted to Keep. If someone has external citations for it too, then that would meet WP:V I don't, which I why I have voted for it rather than editing to add them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conclusively. I made this page as a joke for an email announcement of Turf Tuesday, which does exist. I concede that the page should not exist on Wikipedia. I was hoping that one of you administrators would get around to deleting it. Although I recognize good reasons, viz. those governing wikipedai content, this does not therefore mean that I must be motivated by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.90 (talk)

If you are the original author (CecilJohnRhodes), please can you sign in and confirm that you want the article deleted? It can then be speedily deleted according to policy. At times like this, When people take a joke a bit too seriously, the Wikipedia red tape gets in the way of doing the right thing. Thanks. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real and significant phenomenon and there is no reason it shouldn't be included. The presence of this page also enriches the Turf Tavern page. The long history of association with Rhodes Scholars is clearly one of the distinctive and notable features of the Turf. 86.8.134.54 (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is the source that supports this comment, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The photo from the Turf Tavern article, showing a blackboard in the Turf Tavern with Bill Clinton on it verifies the link between the Turf Tavern, Bill Clinton and Rhodes Scholars. This is more than enough for notability and the fact that posters here have attested to the fact that this happens on Tuesdays, I see no reason why it should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.51 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to establish notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no citations from third-party reliable sources. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculous; even the one half decent reference doesn't call it 'Turf Tuesday'. Remove as fast as possible. TerriersFan (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House where the Bottom Fell out

Without one secondary or tertiary reference this is patently not notable). Artist's main article already deleted as spam. The apparently extensive reference list is copied wholesale from the now deleted artist's page-most don't even mention the artist, let alone this work. Debate (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See further commentary at Talk:House_where_the_Bottom_Fell_out. Debate (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - grossly fails all the tests, particularly verifiability and notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an in-depth article about a piece of art, but still non-notable. References are un-related to the article. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources is really about the subject, and the artist in question is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the exhaustive source analysis at talk and no evidence of other notability via reliable sources _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above..Modernist (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent analysis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion Kruger (wrestler)

Non-notable wrestler. Website cited in references no longer exists. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a raised eyebrow. NN, per nom. What happened Ajstyles tna roh? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nikki311 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Inc. (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page merely links to two articles. These have already been amended to directly link to each other rather than this page, removing the extra step. Steve ^{T • C} 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page. I did so in case more than two "War Inc." pages were created. As it's been awhile and that hasn't happened, I don't see a reason why not to simply cross link them, as Steve's done. Support EvilCouch (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 - I don't even think consensus is required, the original author agrees with the nominator's decision and its not even a real article, just a disambiguation. Atyndall93 | talk 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone have any objections if I perform a non-admin close on this, then stick it up for a CSD G6 or G7? Steve ^{T • C}
  - I've tagged it for G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excellent. I wasn't sure if that could be done while this AfD was still in progress, which is why I held off. Steve ^{T • C} 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I find disambiguation pages quite handy and see no reason for this page to be deleted.

The reason for it to be deleted is that no-one will ever navigate to it. Both War Inc. and War, Inc. contain disambiguation links to each other at the very top of their respective articles. Steve ^{T • C} 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I have often found two-item DAB pages to be useful and have created a few myself, these two titles are so close that a cross-reference DAB line on each article is sufficient. Of course if someone manages to find a DAB-able Wikipedia article (not a redlink) that can be added to this page, then change my opinion to keep. 23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally disambiguation pages are created so that there is no more than one hatnote at the top of an article's page. In this case, it's not needed and merely creates a superfluous click step. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab page made redundant by hatnotes on both articles mentioned in it. Should there be more "War Inc."'s, this can be recreated with minimum effort, but anticipating it would be crystal balling. B.Wind (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G3. There's no need to open an AfD for blatant hoaxes like these, as they are definitely eligible for speedy deletion. --Angelo (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDMAS FC

Hoax article. No google results on MDMAS FC[36] or Mad Dog Massive Apreication Society Football Club[37] Deadly∀ssassin 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to album until (reliable, third party) sources confirm this as a single, and it charts. Which it will probably do. Until then, no special treatment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (Mariah Carey song)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N as of now. Won't be released for two months, maybe longer. Lack of third party sources for WP:V. Also, the main source given is a rapidshare mp3 download, which, I.M.O is non notable due to the fact that no one knows exactly where that information was originally found. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with album - does not warrent its own article, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria in that it hasn't been released yet, and as such, cannot possibly be on the top hits list. Atyndall93 | talk 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to E=MC² - Although currently this does not comply with the notability criteria per WP:Music, every Mariah Carey single ever released has its own article and so will this one. There's little point in deleting it when the article will simply be re-created in a month. Per WP:Music, songs are notable if they "have been ranked on national or significant music charts". Carey has had 18 US number-one hits to date and the odds that this will be her 19th are good. Given the artist's record, if it doesn't hit #1 it will be even more notable. Debate (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just it. By keeping it, you are playing the odds. Anyway, as it stands, the sources are terrible and there is no media coverage of it. Undeath (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Changed to redirect to E=MC². Debate (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)|E=MC² I agree it will probably end up with its own article, but there's no point in violating the "no guessing" policy when its will be trivial to break this back into its own article. I suspect as decent sources appear this will happen naturally. Xymmax (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, simply due to WP:CRYSTAL issues. There's been no confirmation, outside of one interview, that this will be a single. On her previous album, the single that was talked about as being the first one released, "Say Somethin'", became her fifth. It can always be recreated when it's confirmed. SKS2K6 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not voting redirect because of:

i) the improbability of the search string Love Story (Mariah Carey song) being entered;

ii) the fact that articles such as this one are created by rabid Mariah Carey fans who are all trying to outdo each other in being the first one to report on a new development (ie, new single, new album, new tour, marriage etc) and, in the process, will use absolutely any source whatsoever they can find on the topic;

iii) the ease at which an above mentioned fan can go into the history of the article serving as a redirect and quickly restore the previous text citing a newly Googled Perez Hilton blog about the same single compared to the hassle of the rest of us possibly going through this same exact debate all over again in order to turn it back into a redirect. It's a beginning of a vicious cycle;

iv) the dangerous precedent we may set by redirecting this instead of deleting it whereby an above mentioned fan will create an article about every single song on this album, again citing blogs and radio interviews, and starting a dozen AfD debates with a dozen resulting redirects that all have the potential of being reverted back to their article state as explained in point iii. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you would like to see for yourself what kind of mass creation of song articles I spoke of in my above explanation, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push Up on Me. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: will we do this for every Mariah single? They always gets nominated, deleted, and two days later confirmed as a single. With this much info already, its a sure sign that it will be released. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Then please show us this info. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment its a sure sign that it will be released??? Have you ever read WP:Verifiability or WP:Reliable sources? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I point out that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of recording singles that have not undgone the scrutinity of this particular article about an actually popular performer. Many many hundreds of less popular performers slide by with un-sourced, un-cited mentions of their singles. There is no comprehensive process in wikipedia for looking at all of the thousands of singles listed here. On that basis, this is an exceptionally odd scrutiny, and is not in the least a measure of the scrutiny needed for all musical singles and recordings needed for wikipedia. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because we don't do that with every single does not mean that we should not. They all must follow WP:MUSIC/WP:N and this does not. Undeath (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yellowdesk makes a fair point. The effort put into nominating this article for afd and debating it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me when the article will almost certainly simply be reintroduced in a month or so, at most. Sure, by the letter of the policy it may not yet comply with the guidelines, but that would also apply to hundreds of thousands of other articles around here. Improving (or deleting) a few of those would be much better uses of people's time than this has been. It seems to me that a case can be made that this debate is unnecessary WikiLawyering. Debate (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the point, but to be honest, it's simply because there's no proof that this will be a single. And it's probably getting scrutinized because Carey is a popular performer, as popular performers would get more page visits, which means related articles would get more page visits as well. All that's holding up this page is one radio interview with Carey stating that "Love Story" will be the next single. Although it's evidence (I'm not claiming the opposite), things can easily change. Maybe Island Records will change singles. Maybe Carey will stop promotion of the album to focus on the marriage. Or maybe "Love Story" will become the next single. Until there's proof of this song being a single, it should not exist as a Wikipedia page, as it asserts no notability otherwise. Yes, it would be silly to debate the notability of a confirmed single, but what we have here is pretty much not that. To me, it seems like this is becoming a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not the article stays should be based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. If you think the article should stay because you disagree with the existing policies or procedures, this is not the place for that discussion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please take a peek at what this version of E=MC² claims to be the third single. Can everyone now see the reason for reliable sources? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for delete. Although Carey did indeed state that Love Story will be the next single, it is at least 2 more months until a third single will be released. This time frame is enough to justify deletion - in 2005, for example, Carey stated that "Say Somethin'" would be the third single from the album emancipation of mimi, yet it turned out that the more popular shake it off was chosen as the third single (Say somethin', instead, became a 5th single). This is noteworthy, given that artist themself either yield to popular demand or to a record company's demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.205.162 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's pure speculation and shows unprofessionalism of the author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.99.10 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hey guys, i just watched ellen, and mariah was there....and she personally said that Love Story will be the third single...so, u can remove that annoying deletion sign on top of the page..RIHANNA RELOADED (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Artist statements are not reliable sources. They have very little control over the order of singles. Those decisions are made at the management level of the respective label - in this case, Island Def Jam. Redirect to the album's article until such time in the future that this is released as a single, if it is actually serviced as a single. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical origins of the Israeli Palestinian relationship

"The role of hip-hop as a mediator of this inter-cultural dialogue" reads like nonsense to me. But someone disagreed with me so I have to bring this bit of original research to AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like complete nonsense from what I read, no meaningful content. Atyndall93 | talk 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, not exactly complete nonsense, it more seems like it has been taken from a larger essay out of context, and given an nondescriptive title. Either way, it's original reasearch and inappropriate for WP. Xymmax (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hip hop mediated inter-cultural Delete per above.Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no real verifiable facts to be asserted; this seems much like an essay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Tagged for speedy deletion(non-admin closure) Author has requested deletion; something about it being a joke by his brother. -Icewedge (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Gandur Castagnola

Contested prod by an IP (probably the creator). Non-notable polo player or possible hoax as a Google search shows no results of this individual winning any polo matches or having any notability at all. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doughboy (character)

Fictional character that appears in only 1 film, Boyz n the Hood. I do not see how this character is notable enough for his article. This character has no secondary sources to establish notability. Even as fancruft I was trying to figure out why someone who create an article for him and not the other characters in the film. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boyz N The Hood. --Hnsampat (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boyz N The Hood. Text could do with some trimming, but some of the content should be kept to strengthen that article. Debate (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Delete I am not entirely convinced that a merge is necessary, but a redirect wouldn't hurt per the higher-than-usual notability of the film. Delete only when the two arguments are not strong enough. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect does not merit it's own article, but content is good. Atyndall93 | talk 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not waste time merging this non-notable character. Madman (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he is named after another fictional character, not notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Thermite. Page contained identical content, so I feel this is a non-controversial redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermite Explosives

Duplicate article of Thermite Can't remember if AfD is for duplicate articles or not... Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simpler just to redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctitized

Non-notable flash program, advertising Chris M. (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the notability guideline for web programs Cunard (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to point out that it strongly seems to fail WP:NFT as well. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ball speculation on a non-notable flash game. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely spam, definitely NN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debate (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn crystal spam. KTC (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines (a google/news search turns up nothing), is speculation without sources, possibly made up (suspicion of that, due to with rumoured assistance of Chuck Norris). Atyndall93 | talk 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable now, maybe in future. --Dezidor (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Notability is marginal but there was no consensus for deletion. The question of a merge is a matter for talk page discussion, outside this AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Peden

Not notable. Only claim to notability is that he ran for Congress against, and lost badly to, Ron Paul. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, below the bar for WP:POLITICIAN. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Chris Peden did serve as Mayor of a city, which WP:POLITICIAN states generally meets the criterion of notability~~. Peden also recieved a substantial amount of national press coverage (examples: [38][39][40]), and even international press coverage (examples:[41][42]), in his run for congress. Although he lost he still recieved a greater than typical amount of press coverage because his opponent was a presidential candidate.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Friendswood is not a "major metropolitan city". It is a modest suburb of Houston. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, enough sources that prove notability, also in Czech language. --Dezidor (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets politician criteria as he has received significant news coverage and was mayor of a town. Per Tdll060. Atyndall93 | talk 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being a mayor does not make someone inherently notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't read WP:POLITICIAN as giving him a pass because he was mayor. Friendswood has fewer than 30,000 residents, and I see no reliable sources coverage about his term as mayor. Furthermore, most of the sources that speak address him are blogs. Still, the sources in the article and above are enough that I think he squeaks by. Xymmax (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have investigated further and determined that Friendswood has an elected mayor position[43]. Peden has only served as Mayor Pro Tem, a position akin to a deputy mayor, and chosen by his fellow councilmembers. The Mayor Pro Tem only acts in the absence and/or disability of the mayor, and seems primarily to fulfill this duty by presiding when the mayor is unable to attend council meetings. The city also has a professional city manager, so there is no day-to-day operations component of his responsibilities. (See mayor-council government if you are unfamiliar with this model.)--Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was mistaken as to the local position he held, however I still feel level of national and international press coverage he recieved satisfies the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into TX-14#2008 according to what I call the Kratovil Standard. (See also the discussion of Andy Mann there.) I have just merged what I thought was good from the Peden article. Who wants to merge the several useful-looking links from this discussion into TX-14#2008? JJB 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd go for that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle of Ireland 1992-1996

Very stubby article on an apparently non-notable book. The article offers no details of authors/editors, publisher or ISBN number, and I have not been able to find any trace of it on google, google news or amazon.co.uk. The search is a bit difficult because there are many other volumes with similar names ... but I have been unable to find any evidence that this book comes anywhere near meeting any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I'm sure that the article's creator wrote this article in good faith, and that the book does exist, but mere existence doesn't amount to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find actual volume in question in Google Books after extensive searching. Article does not provide any means to discern notability and I cannot either, and as such, fails the WP:BK criteria for notability. Atyndall93 | talk 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is the periodical publication that the article is referring to, but I can find no evidence that it's notable. Indeed, the article fails to even assert notability. Deor (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of assistance in searching to note that the publication in question was apparently edited by one Patrick Fitzgerald. Deor (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing much there.Red Hurley (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lee Conboy

Non-notable local radio presenter in Dublin. No references in the article, and no hits on Google News, so fails WP:BIO.

This article was created by Lauraleeconboy (talk · contribs), so it appears to be an autobiography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on a variety of grounds. Madman (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; as an unsourced autobiography violates WP:NOR. —97198 talk 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flicky (bird)

This article fails so many criteria: WP:V, WP:FICT, and is just a generally non-notable fictional character. How this article was kept the first time around, I'm not sure. Any relevant information to the character itself is already in Flicky, which is the respective character's video game article. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently fails WP:N. Seems to be very limited coverage of the game he appeared in, nevermind the character itself. The article on the Flicky video game is unreferenced, so any coverage would go towards providing content/citations for that article. Bridies (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a merge first, but the article only lists in detail where and when this character had cameo appearances, and is a gameguide otherwise. Nothing that I see that would necessitate merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. There's a failure to establish the notability of this character. It has not earned its own article. Randomran (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely lists the appearances of said bird in a variety of different Sonic games, all of which mention the character. Thus, however unnotable the character is, the article is redundant anyway. Also, there are no sources to establish any notability. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge with Flicky.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally I automatically vote keep for articles that have passed AFD with a keep decision within the last couple of months. This one is unusual because it was closed after only one keep and with the comment "based on discussion" from the admin involved. I'm hesitant to make a decision either way until I find out more as to the closing editor's rationale. Has anyone asked him/her? 23skidoo (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was was wrongly closed, as I see it. The single 'keep' was an I-like-it argument. Bridies (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all uncited material (i.e., all of it.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it that's a delete vote due to uncited material? Kind of an obscure way to make a point for deletion, but oh well. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming should be discussed on the talk page. — Scientizzle 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Ahmed Ibrahim

Prodded once by User:Travellingcari. Removed in February with a summary that refs would be coming and it is still not notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I acknowledge he died pre-hyper prevalence of internet and that the internet may not have as exhaustive coverage in the Sudan, GScholar is 3 false positives with no coverage of his poetry, the first one in Books could well be him as it refers to a poet, but it's a trivial mention. We don't know enough from the article to know whether he as also the ambassador, although that's doubtful. Pending clarification on this, but it doesn't appear he passes WP:BIO for his published poems _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability, no verification, no content. I guess that speaks for itself. I don't ever see why people create stubs like this with just one or two lines. If you're going to write a stub, at least put some effort into it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oooh, an obscure Sudanese poet. These are the most interesting AFDs. I'm not finding a lot, but there are a few hits for "Salah A. Ibrahim" at Google Books that seem to be relevant. It also appears that this guy wrote an article of some sort called "A Tourism in the Poetic Forest of Salah A. Ibrahim", although it sure isn't available anywhere online. User:Azome1 seems long gone, but I hope there's a subject expert somewhere out there who can chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't link-bomb here, but even a cursory Google-books search turns up in several reviews of African literature - including Twentieth-century Literary Movements Dictionary, African Theatre, Encyclopedia of world literature in the 20th century and African Writers at the Microphone. In Sudan Notes and Records (Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Khartoum University Press, 1963) he is described as follows as "...Sudanese poetry written by the young poets of today. The most important of these poets is Salah Ahmed Ibrahim. In his poetry there is all the yearning, all the frustration of his generation. He writes his poetry with miraculous ease and beauty.". These kind of references don't suggest deletion to me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that his name is also spelled Salah Ahmad Ibrahim. See [44]. I think I'll go with a solid Keep now. Zagalejo^^^ 06:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the page then? His name seems turn up as either. I'm also not yet able to establish whether other uses of the name (ambassador etc.) refer to the same person. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref'd. A pity there's not more available on this fascinating person. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are you saying you're not sure the poet is the ambassador? If not, it shouldn't be cited as such _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure, I now am. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Books links show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Withdraw If he is a diplomatic ambassador, that's enough notability for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Flittner

non-notable basketball player (fails WP:ATHLETE), likely written with COI Paulbrock (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. This college ball-player has not "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" and the bulk of whose references do not appear to meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them (ie they are GWU game write-ups), thus failing WP:BIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Non-notable, non-noticeable. Madman (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Debate (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Actually he has competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Gardner-Webb University is division 1. And you can find articles about him [45]. So doesn't that make him pass WP:ATHLETE. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article about a game, that merely mentions him, rather than offer "significant coverage".Paulbrock (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as promotional piece per WP:CSD#G11. --jonny-m t 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ronnie Williams Foundation

Contested prod, where the prod reason was "Nonnotable foundation. Wikipedia is not a memorial" — my thoughts exactly. In addition, article is written (with classic COI tone) about the man, not the foundation (our article Ronnie Williams is a different Ronnie). Delete. ~EdGl (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. My sentiments exactly: it's spam in addition to being in breach of WP:NOT per nom. There is no sign of any third party coverage at all, and nothing in the article leads one to believe the person or the foundation are in any way notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there appears to be no reliable sources to establish notability. (Google news gets nothing, and regular search only pulls up trivial coverage). The fact that the article is currently a coatrack / memorial doesn't help either. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it's an ad/obituary(ish). Blatant advertising. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get the Led Out

Obscure Led Zeppelin cover band. Fails every test of WP:MUSIC as far as I can see. —Chowbok ☠ 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the ghits are surprisingly sparse. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - doesn't fail WP:MUSIC as per examples such as this Times News independent review of band selling out 1800 seat capacity venue five times concurrently. Band's ghit is number one out of 19.2 million hits. Factminer —Preceding comment was added at 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a single review makes it notable. Also, I'm not really sure what the fact that Get the Led Out's web site is the first hit for a search on "Get the Led Out" proves.—Chowbok ☠ 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the band's website having the first ghit means very little. What would mean something would be if any of the results being a third-party mention of the band. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this [ghit] band headlines major national venues and is sold next to Avril Lavigne, Jeff Beck, etc. via LiveNation, Ticketmaster and numerous third party agencies. They are listed on Celebrity Access, Pollstar, and included in major national promotional campaigns on major market FM broadcasts, broadcast tv, and targeted print ads and mass emailings from major concert promoters alongside of legendary performers . Multiple reviews are available but many have been archived. The bands website lists multiple third party reviews.

Their success is not predicated on any type of wikipedia page therefore including them in wikipedia does service to wikipedia only. Deleting the page will only serve to harm the wikipedia community by censoring one of the largest and most successful Led Zeppelin acts available to public audiences. Factminer•12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also - [BRE] Sold as "The American Led Zeppelin" by the same concert promoter on the same page as Robert Plant, the original vocalist of Led Zeppelin. All acts listed including Get The Led Out appear to be of major status. Factminer

Delete - Then let's go through the criteria of WP:MUSIC and see if it meets any of them:
- 1. 1 - We have so far seen only one [46] non-trivial work. The ticket listing sites are trivial as defined in WP:MUSIC #1.
  2. 2 - So far, no assertions have been made that the band has charted.
  3. 3 - So far, no assertions have been made that a record has gone "certified gold"
  4. 4 - We have seen no mention of an international concert tour.
  5. 5 - Has not released any albums on a major or important indie label.
  6. 6 - Does not include ex-members of notable bands (as far as I can tell, "Hit the Ground Running" is not notable.
  7. 7 - So far, no assertions have been made that the band is the more prominent than any of the many other[47] Led Zep cover bands.
  8. 8 - no major award nominations.
  9. 9 - no music competition victories.
  10. 10 - no performances for notable works of media.
  11. 11 - no national rotation in major radio network.
  12. 12 - the band has not been the subject of a national broadcast.

Then, add to that that the band has major verifiability issues, as we have still seen only one non-trivial 3rd party work.

Is there something that's been overlooked? -Seidenstud (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a gigging band (and having your tickets for sale available on the interweb) does not make you notable. As is so succintly pointed out above, fails WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Scientizzle 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Marie May

Lots of bit parts, no significant roles. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Pastordavid (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Rob (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being on the cover of several major magazines is definitely notable for a model. Appearing as a guest star on national network TV shows adds to the notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 4 May 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 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Magazine cover appearances, plus ten roles in films, well-known TV series. —97198 talk 11:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TIMZ

DELETE - Fails WP:MUSIC. No assertion of notability, no sources. Endless Dan 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was interviewed on Hannity and Colmes (link to video), though it was an episode guesthosted by chuck norris. --Gwguffey (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:31, 7 May 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 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. If there was anything more than a brief interview, then maybe. Wikipedia is not myspace. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Undeath (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's never had a hit single, or any other notable trait, as required under WP:MUSIC; as for the future CD, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, a quick Google search shows no coverage in reliable sources. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete lacks extensive, non-trival coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, per WP:WEB. --slakr^\ talk / 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2old2play.com

Fails WP:WEB as an unnotable website. Additionally, the site's url is listed in Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, making the article impossible to even edit (couldn't even put the AfD notice in it without first stripping out all links to it). AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. silly rabbit (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: The article seems to have been supported by an interest in advertising the website, which is troubling. That earned the site a spot on our blacklist. That alone creates a strong case for deletion. Add that to a notability problem. An interview mention buried on the xbox live community site gives some notability, but not enough to pass a threshold test for inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't really pass WP:N, with coverage in only one source. The article reads like a brief advert. Bridies (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appearance in secondary sources is apparently limited to a single web-based interview (which in turn is hosted on a promotional corporate fansite) and does not establish a convincing case for notability. As well, the issue with it being a blacklisted site puts editors in an awkward position. The case for deletion outweighs any reasonable expectation for the site to develop notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Neutral there is some RS coverage although it's all behind pay gates and I can't assess depth. However the site is discussed in two scholarly articles, quite prominently in the latter. It might eke by but I don't know how to handle the black list issue _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that significant coverage to be honest, just a few passing mentions in articles. --neonwhite user page talk 03:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Some notoriety for the site, however its hard to verify it. The issue of the blacklisting may be due to confusion with the site gamestooge.com, which attaches itself with 2old but the link doesnt seem to go the other way around(beside forum posts). If someone can provide adequate sources I'd say keep. John .n-IRL 03:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:WEB. Even the one source in the article doesn't really establish notability. I'm not convinced that the site being blacklisted should be a factor in AfD (since that could be the result of someone unrelated to the site, ie diehard fan), but this is a delete regardless of that. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. The source provided is not sufficient to establish notability. KTC (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable website. I'm a member of the site, but right now there are just not enough sources to make it notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first off, that it is a blacklisted site does not mean it is not notable; I would tell Random to assume good faith, since I created the page and have no connection to the site at all. Anyhow, some other coverage: from the The Escapist:[48] as well as numerous newspapers profiling adult gamers, e.g., [49] (and these include exclusive mentions, not just "passing"). Then there's the fact it was profiled in Official Xbox Magazine (Is. 43, April 2005, i believe.) In other words: multiple, independent sources. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I read through those sources (or as much of them as was freely available online), and they don't seem provide in-depth or detailed coverage of the site. They seem to be more focused on the concept of older gamers, or on the founders of the site (in latter case, it's just a 4-line interview with them). Notability requires in-depth coverage of the site in question, which these sources don't seem to establish. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:WEB: "...but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..." I feel that the sources provided (I'm trying to get a ProQuest access, so I can get the full copies of the google news searches) do fufill criterion in this way. I also think together the Xbox.com and OXM sources prove notability. Is two the bare minimum? Yes, but I am confident the article can be cleaned up and improved to show notability (the OXM was literally a story about them, I'll see if I can find some scans for it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Bfigura that the Escapist article is trivial 'coverage'. 2old2play isn't the subject of that article at all, it's Halo. I can't comment on the newspaper article because I can't read it. The print magazine article might be enough (it's mentioned in the article but there's no citation), it depends. Has anyone got access to it? Bridies (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fuchs. Sources found -> notable. User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources found, does not mean notable. A site must have adequate sources from locations which are notable themselves. So far 2old2play doesn't seem to fulfill this. (Certainly the adequate part anyway). John .n-IRL 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Fuchs made a good enough case that the site is notable. It's much better to err on the side of too much information on Wikipedia than too little. --MQDuck 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus. All useful content has been merged with another article. PeterSymonds | talk 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College Street (TTC)

Non-notable location in the Toronto mass transit system Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. -Icewedge (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a short walk from where I dwell/lurk. Nothing special, no trains to Hogwarts stop here (AFAIK). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about the Hogwarts trains....Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that the Hogwarts trains leave from Union Station. Reggie Perrin (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the only train that leaves from Union Station?Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note -- a 5-day debate has been going on about another street-car stop on this line. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street (TTC). There are 30 or so of these non-stations.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating all the other related pages as non-notable locations (per nom):

- I don't think you can just roll additional articles into this AFD - there's a specific process for proposing multiple deletions. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am adding all these pages because they are all cut from the same piece of cloth. These street-car stops have little or no significance, and many have been already tagged as Orphans (some over a year ago). Let's not do this one at a time -- we are already in the middle of a debate about Queen Street, which was nominated 4 or 5 days ago. Let's decide what to do, once and for all, for the whole class of items, and settle it.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - I would tend to agree with Reggie Perrin. The best thing to do with all the ones you suggest would be to start 1 AFD with all of them. Not wait till a few deletes roll in testing the waters, then tack on more Articles to someone elses AfD. Im sure any train related Projects might have issues with how that may look. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all streetcar stops to the article on the line they're a part of. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Merge as per bearcat; Keep Exhibition Loop (TTC) which is notable for historical reasons with Exhibition Place. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete all except Merge Exhibition Loop (TTC) with Exhibition Place. Looking at the articles there's really nothing worth merging with the exception of the Exhibition Loop article and I think that material makes more sense in the article on Exhibition Place. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest Exhibition Loop (TTC) be merged with Exhibition Place. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL per Clarityfiend. GreenJoe 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: For most of these stops, there is really nothing to merge since the page simply says they are a street-car stop on a transit route. Many of the places listed at these stops are not significant at all, and are quite transient -- the bars and shops will be gone in 5 or 10 years. We may end up only with one or two of some significance. (I can see the point about Exhibition Loop)Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Ron B. Thomson. I can see the point to keeping articles on streetcar lines or train stations, since those are permanent and significant parts of the mass transit infrastructure. Individual streetcar stops aren't, though: they're just the point where the streetcar happens to stop, with a small open shelter only a little larger than the ones on most bus routes. —Silly Dan _(talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE all the streetcar stops and Category:Toronto LRT stations, but retain Exhibition Loop which is an important TTC station. The facility consists of an area about half a kilometre long, consiting of the loop, multiple tracks, platforms, shelters and a turnstyle entrance. It even has signage similar to a subway station. I have pictures - but not enough time to post them. This should therefore be integrated somewhere in an article relating to TTC facilities, and do not merge with Exhibition Place. - Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Secondarywaltz. These are essentially street corners that are not notable on their own or as streetcar stops; events that take place at or near some of them are sometimes notable, but would be covered in specific articles related to those events. They aren't even notable in a WP:LOCAL context. Risker (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Exhibition Loop. I agree that Exhibition Loop has some significance and should be merged to Exhibition Place, at least until there are reliable sources for expansion. The others are simply stops and redirecting the others is misleading since they can have multiple meanings. (Is College Street (TTC) the subway station, College Street bus route, or stop for multiple bus routes or streetcar stops?) DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SO -- If I go ahead and add any vital information from these pages to the page(s) describing the routes themselves (with something done about Exhitibion Loop), is anyone going to object? I could leave these pages empty. Does that cause a bot to delete them?Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All notable information has been merged into the 510/509/512 Street Car Lines pages. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Islamic School

Outside of the trivia of being the first Islamic school in Charlotte, N.C., this school is not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant news coverage, according to Google News. --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The news is about the opening of the school, which is a single-news event.Ecoleetage (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only 3 out of those 33 hits are about the opening of the school. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. An Islamic school in the US may well be highly unusual, but the sources are all local ones, writing about the school on its opening day, or are otherwise trivial mentions. There are none which truly assert the notability of the school. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete non-notable. Madman (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article a bit with some refs. Over 90% of the Google News hits are not about the opening of the school, so this can't be dismissed as a single news event. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an Islamic church sharing premises with a Christian church in controversial circumstances. Backed up by multiple, independent sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School

Non-notable day school. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For a K-8 school, it gets a lot of media coverage. See Google News archive. --Eastmain (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Look carefully and you'll see it is mostly news calendar listings. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Madman (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article would appear to indicate notability, but the free preview doesn't last long enough to reveal exactly what this honour was. Does anyone have a Highbeam subscription that they can use to check it out? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see below. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a Blue Ribbon School, the highest award that a US school can obtain (won 1987-88). Also as, far as I can see, the first Jewish school to win this award. I will add sources. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated by TerriersFan. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because so far this a stub that does cite a few very good and reliable sources and can be improved even more. Living Judaism can only be appreciated through its synagogues and schools and this is one of them as an important component of both Category:Jewish day schools and Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago. IZAK (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established per TerriersFan. --MPerel 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camarillo UFO

Delete Close encounters of a non-notable kind? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable event. The sources cited fail WP:RS, being a personal website and blog. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Merenta (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12 as blatant copyright violation of http://www.law.indiana.edu/directory/cochoa.asp with no assertion of permission. KrakatoaKatie 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christiana Ochoa

This person may be somewhat notable, but this is the longest resume that I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the article contains little else. This does not belong in an encyclopedia, as the author seems to be using the page simply to display the subject's credentials. I feel like a tourist (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a CV, not an article. When did Wikipedia turn into CareerBuilder.com? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might be a good resume, but as a Wikipedia article it is complete and total junk. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No legitimate assertion of notability. silly rabbit (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual does not seem to meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). silly rabbit (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Ohnoitsjamie just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billione

I can't find any sources for this, doing a google search of "Billione Eastern Michigan" shows no indication of this person anywhere. The article doesn't give a first name either. Nick Garvey (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlanList

Contested PROD - Software product "currently in beta stages"; no assertion of notability; no sources other than producer's website; no evidence of notability (e.g. reviews, press coverage) to be found on that website either. Stormie (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The article contains no third-party sources asserting notability. silly rabbit (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This software is not notable. It is not even out yet. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure crystal ballery of non-notable software Bfigura ^(talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:DICDEF. PeterSymonds | talk 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent suicide

This is merely a dictionary definition with no references; this does not deserve its own article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Valtoras (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per the previous comment. Get the hook for this one, please! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a combined dictionary definition of apparent and suicide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Debate (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent delete per above. Naturally, if we get a message purporting to be from the article's creator that says "delete", we should be suspicious. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition, not expandable to a full article. Aleta ^Sing 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but make a Wiktionary entry on it, a Google search shows the term has some notability (i.e. it isn't a neologism). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not only is it a mere definition, but it's a definition not even needed by anyone who understands the words "apparent" and "suicide". --MQDuck 07:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'speedy delete' --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd ochoa

This professor has a long list of credentials, but none of his 'publications' seem to be published yet, and he is definitely using this article as an online resume. I feel like a tourist (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An impressive CV, but a non-notable article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Macleod

Non-notable, non-sourced, radio person. No external reliable sources to support any claim of importance. JodyB_talk 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability; also since this is a living person the default assumption should be to delete (though that's a separate discussion). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akili Roberts

Besides being orphaned, I'm not seeing what the notability for this person is above and beyond a "normal" robber. If it was a highly publicized robbery (involving deaths and gunfire) (and hence notable), I would support an article on the event, including at least part of this information, but I'm not sure the subject of this article is notable by himself. Umrguy42 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Umrguy42 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a speedy candidate to my eye. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Umrguy42 « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:12 2008 May 7 (UTC)
Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep with the addition of reliable sources. Nomination withdrawn. -JodyB_talk 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Ultrahigh Bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems

To begin, there are no sources at all only some external links. The article only marginally asserts notability. I believe it to be an otherwise unremarkable college program. Also, it appears to have been written by someone with a WP:COI who has written virtually nothing else. JodyB_talk 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an "unremarkable college program", but a national, multi-university centre of excellence. I found and added several references in reliable sources using Google News. Please, everyone, don't nominate an article for deletion without looking for sources first. --Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am glad you added the sources and I will close this speedily as a keep. I would note that the responsibility for sources lies with the author of the article. Given the obvious COI with the author such a nomination is not unexpected. -JodyB_talk 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KTC (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy

Does simply being a Spanish Nobleman make this person notable? I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the same point I made for Fabián de Monroy y Carvajal, 7th Lord of Monroy's AfD. By weird coincidence, I feel like a tourist and I came across two of these "Lord of Monroy" pages and nominated them for deletion. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:08 2008 May 7 (UTC)
Keep. Being a nobleman confers automatic notability if the title of nobility makes its owner a member of a national parliament. Wikipedia has lots of articles on members of Britain's nobility, living and dead, whose main claim to notability is having been a member of the House of Lords. If this person was a member of Spain's house of lords or a similar body, such as a privy council, then he is automatically notable. However, it is not clear whether his title made him a member of a national legislature as well, and I would welcome clarification on this point from someone who knows more about Spanish history. --Eastmain (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being a Spanish nobleman does not make the person inherently norable. This belongs at a genealogy site such as Ancestry.com. Edison (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabián de Monroy y Carvajal, 7th Lord of Monroy

The supplied source appears to be list of names only and there is no indication that the individual was "part of [an] enduring historical record". (See Wikipedia:Notability (people).)

Nobility is not a trait that implies notability. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:48 2008 May 7 (UTC)

Keep. Being a nobleman confers automatic notability if the title of nobility makes its owner a member of a national parliament. Wikipedia has lots of articles on members of Britain's nobility, living and dead, whose main claim to notability is having been a member of the House of Lords. If this person was a member of Spain's house of lords or a similar body, such as a privy council, then he is automatically notable. However, it is not clear whether his title made him a member of a national legislature as well, and I would welcome clarification on this point from someone who knows more about Spanish history. --Eastmain (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being a Spanish nobleman does not make the person inherently norable. This belongs at a genealogy site such as Ancestry.com. Edison (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) Subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Howard (Australia)

I can't seem to find many sources to prove the notability for this unencyclopedic article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites two reliable sources: the Dictionary of Australian Biography (1949) and the Australian Dictionary of Biography (1983). If both those sources consider him worth writing about, then he probably is notable. He wrote several books which were widely read. Remember, he was from an era when good preaching could make one a celebrity. --Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as evidence that there is still a market for his books, see http://www.biblioz.com/lp25762848979_775.html and click "Click Here to Check All Current Online Stock For This Title Now" or see http://www.amazon.com/Conning-Tower-Soul/dp/B000GLEJSM --Eastmain (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:N, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other. These sources are a good guide used by WP:AUST to determine notability and indeed this article is part of a project "to-do" list. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Howard was unquestionably one of the greatest preachers in the history of Australian Protestantism" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You don't need many sources for notability when you have the Dictionary of Australian Biography -- being included in that alone completely and adequitely demonstrates it, just as inclusion in the Dictionary of National Biography would. Multiple sources would be good for verification of information, but that's a content issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, ludicrous nomination.--Grahame (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone. It seems that the nominator's characterizations of the article are misplaced. Maxa megalon 2000 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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