Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob's 1st Grade

TV series allegedly created by a 1st-grader, and the TV network that allegedly aired it is a redlink. Unsourced, no assertion of notability whatsoever. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Speedy delete G3 all as blatant hoaxes, so tagged. Nothing at all outside of Wikipedia acknowledges the existence of this supposed TV show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer; there are three blue-linked actors in the cast; none of their IMDB pages show this as a credit. Also, the article creator is User:Jakobsengpiel08, making this vanity/COI/autobio. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The pages of these bluelinks have been edited by this same user. I have reverted those edits. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant vandalism (hoax). The Dominator (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Pribich

No assertion of notability. Subject has not been the subject of a profile, or even much news coverage. Previous version deleted because it became an attack page against him and his political views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how this meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet, fails WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject appears at first to be a run-of-the-mill Holocaust denier, but an anti-Semite of unusual ambition. He sought, through confusion, to effect a form of identity theft against the ADL. That’s already notable, in my book. However, subject goes beyond the call of madness, by inventing a holocaust: “Zionist genocides on Serbs”! If this article is deleted, and you told people about this guy, they’d say you made him up. With some additional material about the foregoing matters, article will be of great interest to psychologists and psychiatrists. Alternate suggestion: merge material on him within another article, in terms of holocaust denial/fabrication 24.90.201.232 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's lots of nuts around, and only notable nuts are Wikipedia worthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joto Prause County, Texas

Article appears to have been created as a result of vandalism. County does not exist, to the best of my knowledge and web search results. InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Speedy delete G3 It's been created as vandalism/hoax then blanked (not by the author, mind). ~~Would G3 apply?~~ I think G3 would appply since the only content pre-deletion was vandalism anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the editor that blanked the page, for the reason I noted in my nomination for deletion. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. MeegsC | Talk 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax; also, please don't blank the article while it's up for discussion; editors want to be able to see what's there (not that it makes much difference in this case). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Result was Keep Non-Admin Closure --Pookeo9 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McKelvey

Well i saw this article and thought it wasnt that he was a good horse but i dont know if he should be in wikipedia no offense to people who like him. What do you think? Keep or delete? All thoughts are welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:23, April 8, 2008

Keep Anything second in Grand National will be keep as will have plenty of WP:RS Here is one from a Times article and anotherfrom AOL. SunCreator (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a good horse in the National Hunt racing—until he was killed in a fall last weekend during his most recent Grand National run. Small article at the moment (as are many NH horse articles), but as noteworthy as many other race horses we've got. MeegsC | Talk 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes my notability requirement with ease, its a well-kept stub ..--Comet styles 10:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Suncreator. I am a bit worried about this becoming a coatrack against animal euthanasia, or running horses inappropriately. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability is not established.--Kubigula (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Communications, Inc.

Procedural nomination for Russavia (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, they definitely have some name recognition and press over the years. What's online is probably just enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and does not assert notability. -Drdisque (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ to Delete unless articles can be found that establish the firm's notability. I found several company mentions in articles about clients or "Nike communications" people from the other Nike, but nothing yet overwhelming about a company that's been around 24 years. It probably doesn't help that there's some serious overlap of one-day/IP editors wreaking PR speak across the articles of companies listed as clients. Flowanda | Talk 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Elementary School (Kirkfield)

one sentence with no references. Non notable. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its school district Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board per WP:SCHOOL. No evidence of notability found. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its school district Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board per WP:SCHOOL. This didn't need an AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to its school district Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. TerriersFan (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its school district Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board per WP:SCHOOL. Instead of having a seperate article its easier to just merge it.--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its school district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy closed, article moved to project namespace. Redirect can be {{db-author}} tagged or brought to WP:RFD. Non-admin close. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Systems Biology Research Groups

Page appears to be a violation of WP:NOT#LINKS; minimal or no internal links, no apparent criteria on what links are included, and no indication if either individual links or whole list passes WP:N, WP:CORP or WP:PROF for scholarly groups. WP:LIST and associated pages are not explicit, but seems to intimate that lists should be internal links - this may have implications for other pages, including List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide and List of microfluidics research groups being two I am aware of. WLU (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a redirect. The page it redirects to is an internal Wikipedia:WikiProject and not a wikipedia article. SunCreator (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect. Not sure if that comes under Afd however. SunCreator (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. I have moved this article out of the Wikipedia mainspace into the WikiProject Systems space, because I consider these list of great importance for the development of the project. These kind of list at the moment are still a great help, to explain about systems science, and to get an impression of what is really going on in the world. -- Mdd (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close It doesn't come under AfD; this belongs at WP:Redirects for discussion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No consensus to merge, but there is no need for a consensus to improve the section in the parent article (without this content). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters on The Phil Hendrie Show

Delete. This is a hopelessly long list of non-notable characters that appear on a talk radio show, not supported by any substantial third party publications, nor will they ever be. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, no reliable sources. Nick Graves (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Severely excessive. See Wikipedia:Listcruft points 1-3, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Phil Hendrie Show#Guests. Since the show is a mock radio talk show, some major recurring characters are worth mentioning in the main article. On it's own, detailing every single major and minor character is perhaps a bit much. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks Notability, contains lots of original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its information is valuable and i can verify some of the things it says as i listen to the show daily. I also have information to add to the list but i am new to wikipedia and im not sure how to add additional content, all it appears i can do is edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.196.65 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zvika Krieger

An editor blanked this article with the comment, "deleted; not notable enough". I'm bringing it here to put it through the formal deletion process for this editor. I'm neutral at this time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see sufficient notability per WP:BIO here. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle -Drdisque (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons. --68.167.26.133 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Programming Language

New programming language. Simply not (yet) notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is used on few Universities in Poland so it's regional and specific. According to authors: publications and other languages versions in very near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.162.87 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this if a single reliable external source can be found. It does need a bit of clean up. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - absolutely. The official English site doesn't even assert any notability! I find it unlikely this will ever be any more notable than the dozens of other languages that are developed every day. If it is, then we can recreate it then. -- Mark Chovain 06:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a programming exercise -Drdisque (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of lifestyles (2nd nomination)

Deleted before and re-created. Still unreferenced. What's a lifestyle? Not encyclopedic in the slightest Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There didn't appear to be any consensus on the first discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lifestyles), and it was not deleted as a result, so this is not a recreation. It does need work, though. Corvus cornix_talk 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Understand WP:CLS. Lists like categories and templates don't necessarily have to be referenced. SunCreator (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: There is no real common thread linking these together. Furthermore it is in fact impossible to make a list of all lifestyles. One would be better off listing specific categories of lifestyle separately--and even that seems sketchy. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THis is a list of loosely associated topics if I ever saw one. A lifestyle simply refers to a way of life. Because people can and do live their lives based around literally any idea, doctrine, activity, philosophy or hobby, the list is potentially endless. Also, because the potential number of lifestyles is so incredibly broad, the subjects have virtually no other connection to each other whatsoever. Calgary (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. It's difficult to imagine a more indiscriminate list than this one (well, List of things, maybe). Deor (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BEANS. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossibly broad in scope. Virtually any activity or philosophy from rail transport modeling to conservatism to corsetry could plausibly be included. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list, as discuessed by Calgary. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only indiscriminate, but unsalvageably so. And where's the "s&m lifestyle" included? JeanLatore (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Does not fulfill any purpose that is not already better served by categories. Nick Graves (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way in g*d's green earth could this ever be complete and it's so loosely connected that it's almost meaningless. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE. According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove, the nominator is a confirmed sock of User:Storyrates1987. Moreover, based on contribs, the nominator seems to be making rapid and pointed anti-list AfDs (ALL other noms by the account are speedy/snow keeps). Thus, perhaps we should speedy close as consensus is usually that we do not humor bad faith noms by sock accounts? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SK. This is not a candidate for speedy close. Deor (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the nom itself be struck then and only the discussion kept per [1]? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above – indiscriminate, un-complete-able, loosely connected, etc. While I'm occasionally a big fan of process, there's absolutely no reason to speedy close a debate that's almost unanimously delete just because the nom's a confirmed sock. It will just delay the inevitable, since if it were to be speedy closed, someone else would just come along and nominate it tomorrow, and we'd all come back and !vote again. -- Kéiryn ^talk 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholars seem to have no trouble understanding what is meant by lifestyle since they use the concept frequently. It is especially used and defined in a medical context: This research indicates that it is possible to identify a discrete number of health lifestyles in a population sample of U.S. adults. . Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars talk about lifestyle (as in a person's habits, especially those that might influence health), but not lifestyles as appears to be meant by this list. What do Breatharianism, Child soldier, Golf, and Piracy have in common? Certainly nothing that scholars have shown any interest in. Klausness (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about distinct lifestyles in many case such as the specific example I quoted. As usual, all that is needed is some sourcing to establish that the entries are recognised as lifestyles in some context - medicine, sociology, whatever. The list could be subdivided by these fields of study as it develops. It's sad to see the people don't get the idea that we don't do OR here but uses sources. If we just base the list upon sources then the problems melt away. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't. It does not matter how well-researched a list like this is, it is still utterly, totally useless. If someone is interested in a particular lifestyle they can search for it themselves--there is no conceivable reason why anyone needs this list. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it is WP:USELESS. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, hence just a random collection of stuff. Klausness (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC points 3, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What constitutes a lifestyle? The word is used so widely and loosely that this list is virtually indiscriminate. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might as well be List of adjectives that could be used to describe a person. -Drdisque (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Clear consensus (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 11:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Negro League baseball players

Unreferenced listcruft, Negro league was not the highest level of professional ball, therefore fail WP:ATHLETE Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, it needs work to be more than just a list, but this is an important list of baseball history. The vast majority of these players were at the highest level that they were allowed to play at, for their time. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Understand WP:CLS. SunCreator (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

User Bricksense1987 is stating his opinion that "Negro league was not the highest level of professional ball" and that it fails the notability test for athletes. I am at a loss to understand this, as there are 35 names on that list in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, which confers some expert opinion that the Negro Leagues were indeed at the "highest level".

He also referred to the list as "listcruft", a Wikipedian term I'd never encountered before. Having looked up the word, I would argue that his description is incorrect, and would ask him to explain exactly what is "listcrufty" about the list of Negro League baseball players. Of the eight criteria given for the term, I cannot see how it could be lumped into any of them.

User Corvus cornix, while agreeing that the list should be kept, has put an "unsourced" label on the article. Do we need sources for this particular article to prove each of these men were Negro League baseball players? Each name on the list links to an individual article about the players, all of whom played in the Negro Leagues (or as men of color were forced to play on top independent black barnstorming teams before the formation of the Negro National League. It speaks for itself.

-- Couillaud (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every article should be its own world when it comes to sourcing. You shouldn't expect a reader to have to hop from article to article to find sources. Sourcing seems to have been provided now, though I haven't checked the link yet. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It holds to the spirit of WP:CLS in that there can be an article written about the list that would make sense. Also per Couillaud's and Corvus cornix's arguments. And, to top it off, I actually have found a source for this. Kansas State runs both a physical and an e-Museum for the Negro Leagues. They have not only a list of players but personal profiles for each one. I did a pseudo-random spot check, looking at the first name, then every five names. Each of them was on that site. I have added that reference and removed the unreferenced template. Staeiou (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: I checked every fifth name. Staeiou (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree with comments in support of keeping this article. The nominator's argument that this fails WP:ATHLETE is completely unfounded—the Negro leagues were fully professional and, as Couillaud has observed, included many of the greatest players in the history of baseball. I agree the list could use some work, and indeed over the last couple of weeks I've been gathering information to expand the list to make it more useful, by adding information such as dates and positions played (including references). It will take me a while to put this information together, so please don't expect to see dramatic changes to the list while this AfD is active, but I am working on it offline. I also note that this appears to be yet another example of a new sockpuppet created to make disruptive AfD nominations; I'm starting to observe a pattern. BRMo (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator appears to be violating WP:IDONTKNOWIT --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for reasons listed above. MeegsC | Talk 23:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above; easily passes notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly defined list, with each entry independently notable. The kind of list I like to see. Deor (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Contents pass notability guidelines; even the list itself is probably notable. Nominator should have a look at WP:CLN, WP:LISTS, and our guidelines on standalone lists and consider withdrawal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nomination is cruftcruft. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would suggest, though, that more be done with this to distinguish it from Category:Negro League baseball players. Perhaps adding the years players were active would help or creating a table with the players' primary positions. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm planning on doing just that—please see my coment above. BRMo (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the climate of the times, it was the highest level of professional baseball for these players. DarkAudit (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Others have stated the reasons.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand the list criteria but by virtue of their skin colour, this was the highest level most athletes were eligible to play at in the time they played (not counting those who later played in MLB following Jackie Robinson in 1947). I think people could easily come looking for a list of Negro League players and this directs them further to the players' individual articles. WP:USEFUL? Probably but I think it applies in this case. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I agree with what has been already been said above. --Borgarde^talk 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are you serious? Did you sleep through class in fourth grade when they talked about how important the Negro Leagues were in the past, and that as much as these players would have loved to go higher in professional baseball, they couldn't? Mind you many writers do consider the Leagues on keel with MLB at this point. I'm baffled the nominator even thought about bringing this to nomination; the notability is extremely clear, and any issues (which are small) will easily be dealt with by others to assert the notability. Nate • (chatter) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus. A valid article, containing information widely discussed. Source is also reliable (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid baseball players

Unreferencced, out of date listcruft Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not WP:Listcruft.

Comment - List appears to be a copyvio in part from [2] SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I created this article many years ago, because I thought the information was fascinating. This is not copyrighted information. I have gleaned it from many sources. As for the allegation that it is unreferenced: the article states (and I quote) "Source for career earnings: Baseball Reference" and "Source for 2007 salaries: ESPN". As for the allegation that the data is not updated, there is no rule here that data must be up to date. This is an encyclopedia, and it is ok to have historic data. But I will gladly update this information sometime later this week. Kingturtle (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ESPN maybe your source, but it says on the ESPN website. 'Copyright ©2008 ESPN Internet Ventures.'. That appears a copyright violation to me. SunCreator (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The salary data are available from other Websites. For example, the 2007 salary data are available from www.baseball-reference.com, which lists Doug Pappas as its source [3]. This type of widely reported data generally isn't considered to be protected by copyright. BRMo (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list presents salary information that is widely discussed in the media and is available from multiple Websites; I don't see how it can be considered to be listcruft. And it includes information from 2007, so it isn't that out of date. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but my understanding is that this type of widely reported data is not protected by copyright. I don't see any valid arguments for deletion. BRMo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nomination argument is cruftcruft. I fail to see how this kind of content isn't encyclopedic/almanac material. If it can be verified and sourced, then it has a place here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominator seems to be an SPA. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Valid article and clear consensus (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam film actors (2nd nomination)

No consensus a year ago. Still a list of unreferenced redlink list cruft. Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) TECHNICAL ERROR nolink to article. Afd does not seem to have been raised corectly.Now correcred. SunCreator (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Lists aren't categories. Needs work, needs references, needs to have redlinks removed till there are articles, needs text, but that's for cleanup, not deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Understand WP:CLS. Red-links are useful for development. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors#Nationality and see same occurs with other lists. SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable list; redlinks and lack of references are not valid reasons to delete. --Beloved Freak 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic topic; elements are easily sourcable and verifiable. See CLN. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominator seems to be an SPA dedicated to deleting these few pages. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement, but otherwise fine. I've removed the redlinks. Nick Graves (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 11:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of French actors

Unreferenced listcruft, does not conform to format set forth at List_of_actors Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists doesn't have to be in the same layout of another. Useful for navigation see WP:CLS. WP:LIST lists are encouraged. SunCreator (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it needs sources and it needs text, meaning a lot of work, but a list isn't the same as a category, it's verifiable and not cruft. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable list; formatting problems and lack of references are not valid reasons to delete. --Beloved Freak 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy keeep. Like the noms other nomination, nomination is cruftcruft. List is perfectly encyclopedic, is easily verifiable and sourcable. categories do not replace lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominator seems to be an SPA whose only purpose is to delete these few pages. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kingturtle (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nom hasn't provided any reason to delete. Left a suggestion for the nom to please review WP:BEFORE. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see this list provide something more that a category couldn't, but there's no good reason to delete it. Nick Graves (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longpark

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Nothing inherently notable about this housing scheme. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all notable. If this is deleted, I suggest also deleting (perhaps speedily) Ashdale, a street in Longpark--same author, even less notability. Anturiaethwr (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looks like that was taken care of... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and concur with Anturiaethwr's suggestion. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anturiaethwr, however you pronounce it. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus - Nabla (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastwatch: The Flood

Essentially vaporware from last decade. Ended up as a short story which would necessarily have completely different article text, and might not even be notable enough to merit an article Maratanos (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Redirect to Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, along with Pastwatch and Pastwatch series. There doesn't appear to be any solid information on these books - all we've got to work with here is a pair of interviews from 1999 and 2001, in which Card mentioned that he might be writing sequels to Pastwatch. In the absence of any further information in the past seven years, and in the face of the contrary evidence that Card's been focusing on his Ender-related series lately, it's probably safe to assume that this never got off the ground - and a single book does not a series make. In the event that something shows up later, the article can always be recreated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect per Zetawoof. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zeta. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Ended up as a short story where? Was it published? --DocumentN (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Self published at the very least on Orson Scott Card's website. Under the name "Atlantis" here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratanos (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly merged. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kieslowski

I am quite tolerant on our inclusion of fiction, but I just can't see this as notable. Merge it to the parent article if desired, delete otherwise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like another autobiography to me. Guess what, how old this one autobiographer might be, 10,12,14? Still he should work on his English though. I recommend to replace such words as "occured" by "appeared", "movie" by "pilot movie" then "its series" will make some sense. greg park avenue (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a fictional character, so I don't think it is a autobio. A fan-made bio, sure.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eva & Adam - really doesn't need its own article. --Beloved Freak 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eva & Adam, non-notable for separate article. Visor (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it it then, if that feels good for you. I'm not really experienced with these things, SORRY for contributing.

Oh yeah, mister smart, this has nothing to do with an autobiography, I just use a nickname. Mister AVENUE, instead of acting the all-knowing around here, you could also realize that not everyone is perfect at creating Wikipedia pages. I'm going to have you reported for insult, that's for sure. Act a bit adult please.

I really thought Wikipedians were peaceful and understanding people... For the record, I'm way older than 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam-Kieslowski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close needed. Considering that the creator agreed to a merge and has (mostly) carried it out.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush, go by the book. The author has signed his article by the very same name and then he accuses me of insult, just because I have assumed good faith that the subject and its author is the very same person. Besides, there is no article in main space titled Greg Park Avenue. greg park avenue (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for the speedy deletion anyways, the page is useless by now. Merged into Eva & Adam.

And for the insult part, perhaps you should have thought about the fact that I mentioned we were talking about a fictional character? I already mentioned that in the introduction! I said "Adam Kieslowski is a fictional character who occurs/appears in ... "If you would have assumed good faith, you would have understand that I was just using a nickname. If I would have wanted to make an autobiographic page, would I have put that text there? Of course not! And, I wasn't even talking about that, but about the part you wrote after that. If you don't know what I mean, read back. You really don't really attract new contributors with your biting way of acting and I'm disappointed this is accepted. Apparently nobody seems to care about it.

And therefore I just have one thing to say, delete the page and give the whole case a rest. All information is already merged into Eva & Adam, so it's fine now. I don't care, as stated, I won't be contributing anymore, apparently some people around here don't appreciate any effort at all. Goodbye!

Give it a rest and act adult about it. I'll just walk away out of this situation laughing. Once Wikipedia, but not anymore...

Adam-Kieslowski (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Norris (football coach)

Soccer coach for lower-league non-professional English clubs. Article was probably created by the subject of the article. Epbr123 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blimey, even the first-team manager at those clubs would fall well short of notability, this guy's only managed the reserves! ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where he coached Waltham Forest or Norton United. I just saw this afd and thought about it and why not merge it to where he recently coached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 16:13, April 9, 2008
Delete per GiantSnowman. Not particularly opposed to a smerge. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually complete lack of notability. No merge, there must be dozens if not hundreds of people connected with the likes of Waltham Forest more worthy of inclusion over the years than him. - fchd (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and no merge as the information within this article would be irrelevant to the team articles themselves. Bettia ^(talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Coates

Non-notable biography. Through a lack of reliable secondary sources, the article fails the notability guideline at WP:BIO dissolve ^talk 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ghits, reads like an advertisement, doesn't seem to have done anything to demonstrate article notability. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Coates is a member of the Recording Academy. I Will do some more research and add a better bio and references for this article.

--Hypursuit (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) — Hypursuit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Graduate Student Association

Not notable (Graduate Student Government). Secondary sources lacking, has original research. SevernSevern (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created as a spinout of University of Maryland, Baltimore County Student Organizations, which is itself a spinout of University of Maryland, Baltimore County. You may be able to argue that it falls under WP:NNC, but after cleaning up the content, it presents little more information than the Summary at it's parent article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local organization with very limited scope. No evidence of sourcing required per WP: ORG TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Travellingcari. Possible to merge. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced non-notable organization material does not have anything good to merge except for mere mentioning that this student association exists, nothing more really. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - original research, unreferenced. KrakatoaKatie 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate Finance Board (Brown University)

This is a "Finance Board" of a student government. No secondary sources cited, and none available. Totally original research SevernSevern (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student governments of particular schools aren't usually notable per WP:ORG and parts of school governments *definitely* aren't notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brown University. Not notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporate the role of the two student bodies into Brown University#Student organizations which badly needs some prose and moving into the main part of the article from See also. All that is needed is a short, sourced summary. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not independently notable, but can be merged into Student Life section or Organization in Brown's main article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This Undergraduate Finance Board is a branch of the Undergraduate Council of Students (Brown University), which recently failed afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undergraduate Council of Students (Brown University)--SevernSevern (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small part of a NN student organization. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate Council of Students (Brown University)

Subject isn't notable and the article doesn't claim notability. Mostly original research, no secondary sources SevernSevern (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student governments of particular schools aren't usually notable per WP:ORG and this is no exception. I don't even think a merge to Ivy Council is warranted as this is pure OR with no evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a merge is useful here. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student councils need sourcing to meet WP:ORG and the sources are not yet present. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing mergeable in the article to salvage. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawjobs.com

Job search website. Article creator seems to have a COI. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN and Advert Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only referenced by Trivial coverage such as articles like newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or, copies of press releases and official announcements...in other words, a total failure of WP:WEB. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unconvinced that either of the two referenced sources are more than unreliable blog-type entries. Can anyone argue me down, or find some RS? --Dweller (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blatant attempt at self-promotion. Article creator clearly has a COI. Reeks of spam. Banjoman1 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its more like a advertisement and it should be a topic on forums not wikipedia. Plus i never saw a news report on lawjobs.com either.--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this should be kept, although the existing article is inappropriate. However, my reason for believing it should be kept is that, in the course of supervising temporary legal staff of late, it is the jobsite they are likely to be checking when they think they are unwatched, and the one they report most often as the source of competing assignments when lobbying for better pay/hours. Perhaps someone not directly involved in the process can find appropriate sources. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been online for 10 years, and there's absolutely no news coverage of this site and really no mention at all beyond the in-kind linking and listings among the corporate types buying and selling this product. The NYT has a huge jobs section too, but it doesn't need its own article. And this article has enough padding as it is in order to look like more than sub-section of a larger article; it just needs to be incorporated into the parent/corporate article. Flowanda | Talk 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the notability, appears to be a semi-advert for the site, and the sources are more than questionable. Also per mentioned above by Flowanda.
|Texas Patriot | Talk | Contributions|
12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; notability established and nom withdrawn.--Kubigula (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Student Union

~~Notability not claimed. No secondary sources. Seems like original research. SevernSevern (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~ I hereby withdraw my AFD based on the verifiable sources provided. There are problems with the content of the article, but they can be fixed. In spite of my withdrawal, non-admin User:Dustihowe was wrong to close this unilaterally. --SevernSevern (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are notable by the large number of students they represent. There isn't a rush or deadline to add sources. There seems to be some failure to discriminate between those students clubs that have no particular genereal interest, and the student organizations which represent what is in practice the major division of a university. GreenJoe 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Concordia Student Union has a tradition of hosting the biggest orientation in Canada and we plan to make this year’s was no different, but also the most fun and diverse." Source GreenJoe 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This autumn Concordia student Chadi Marouf organized a petition to revoke Concordia's membership in the Federation étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ). But the last thing Marouf expected was the Concordia Student Union (CSU) barring his efforts to bring the issue to a head in a student referendum during the upcoming Nov. 26-28 CSU by-elections." Source GreenJoe 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Student groups autonomous from the CSU sprang into action over the past few weeks, fighting against a proposal that would see their fee levies up for renewal every three years. Though the CSU agreed to put off any discussion until next year, Councillor Melanie Roach brought forward a motion on behalf of the concerned groups to guarantee notice be given before Council can make decisions affecting them." Source GreenJoe 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First the number of students does not make it notable. While Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built is very true, you still have to prove the notability of the union. This can be done with secondary sources. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike other student unions that I argued for deletion, this one appears to have significant 2ndary sourcing in TV and News independent of the university that covers the student unions' activities. It does need better referencing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering the amount of militancy in the CSU, it doesn't appear as if the nominator checked before nominating, since the CSU has caused international diplomatic incidents, and bad taste announcements on the Dawson College shooting which made national news, and national news with several embezzlement scandals. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to general lack of notability. Secondary option is to merge to the university's page. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment Stifle, did you look at the sources provided in this AfD? In general, SUs are not notable and don't meet WP:ORG, but this one has been covered extensively and in non-local press for its work. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Why aren't the sources in the article? Stifle (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No idea, not an article I was working on. I don't think not in the article has anything to do with the notability of the topic. At any rate, nom has withdrawn but this will stay open because of your delete vote. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —SevernSevern (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a good thing I did a ghit report before voting. This student union's actually notable (wow...) and should not be deleted. We do need someone to do some copyediting to make sure these ghits get placed into the article and cited properly. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students UCLA

Not notable, and makes no assertion of notability. Has no secondary sources. Mostly original research. SevernSevern (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local org lacking the secondary sources necessary to meet WP:ORG TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs to meet WP:ORG and this one doesn't, at least at present. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn student org. WP:ORG, WP:V/WP:IS, WP:UNIGUIDE. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rudget 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPerceptions Satisfaction Index (iPSI)

In essence this is an advertising which, although it contains encyclopedia-like content, if contains statements from the company that created the survey instrument to measure perceptions of satisfaction: [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsarmi (talk • contribs) 17:17, April 2, 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to List of dancers. Note that some of the redlinks in this article aren't really missing - Rudolf Nureyev and Bill Robinson ("Mr. Bojangles") are two examples. The redundant biographical material should be removed to conform to the usual style of lists, since the 'Sources' section states there's nothing new there. In addition, a merge with List of dance personalities would be a good idea, since dancers have personalities too. KrakatoaKatie 08:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of some notable dancers

Unmanageable list, could be achieved much better as a category. ~~created to make a WP:POINT because List of the best Dancers was nominated for deletion.~~ Roleplayer (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the author was making a WP:POINT; I think he/she was responding to the criticism that the title of the prior article violated WP:NPOV. No opinion on this one, though. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that part duly struck out. I still think it would serve better as a category though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~There already is a list of dancers WP considers notable. It's at Category:Dancers.~~ Making an article for just "some" of them--well, it just doesn't make much sense. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a category, not a list. categories do not replace lists. They are synergistic in nature and both serve different purposes. Redundancy with lists and categories is not a reason to delete one or the other. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but rename to List of dancers for the obvious reason that "some" is indiscriminate. There are several reasons why categories do not replace lists. There are many things that can be done with them. Please view CLN. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who don't want to read CLN, here are the relevant passages: These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CLN. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of dancers, 'some' seems unencyclopedic to me. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of dancers ("some" just invites the question "which ones?"), and trim down the text. Each of the entries on this list is practically a capsule biography, which would be great if these were stub articles (in fact, some stubs should probably be created for the redlinks!), but is a little excessive for a list of this size. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of dancers and aggressively trim to a list, possibly sortable, per Zetawoof. (Use of "notable" in article titles is discouraged. All topics with articles should be notable or lists of notable things.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Celanor et al. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Some" notable, what is the criteria? Unmaintainable, open-ended, and subjective. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes renaming it to "List of Dancers" a non-viable solution? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be far too large. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but in the event it becomes unmanagable, it can always be subdivided. Deletion is only for articles that aren't in line with policy, not "articles I don't know how we can manage". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Dancers. I was going to suggest the category vs. list thing, but apparently Wikipedia policy has once again changed by osmosis (given how many folks are citing the "categories are not lists" philosophy in their arguments to keep even though just a few weeks ago same philosophy was being used to justify deletion of list articles. I really wish this community would make up its bloody mind. It's like the place is run by George Orwell. 23skidoo (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline has included the "they shouldn't be in conflict" bit since November of 2007. Most editors just don't realize it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some notable dancers"? Delete. Use a category. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And leave a hole in the List of occupations hierarchy? Categories don't replace lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use a category - or more than one. Isaacsf (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, how would we deal with the hole that would be in the List of occupations hiearchy? I.e, List of painters, List of writers, List of theologians, etc. Keep in mind that there are two ways of browsing Wikipedia, not one. They're not meant to be exclusive; rather, they're meant to complement each other. I don't quite understand why some editors have trouble with understanding this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every one of the lists you referenced is a list of lists, and is essentially a category of either other categories, or names of people with wikified links to them. None tries to be a "best of" list, and none provides a summary of each, as this article does. This article is a cherry-picked list. If it were simply a neat, organized, long list of names, as the other ones are, I'd support keeping it. Isaacsf (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, granted, that's what it should be. But it has the capability to be changed to that without much effort. And since it can be improved by editing, I don't think it's a good deletion candidate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. Should be renamed to something like "List of notable dancers" or "List of dancers", though. Klausness (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; move to List of dancers per Celarnor; trim out duplicated biographical material, starting articles for red links likely to be notable/encyclopaedic per Zetawoof. tomasz. 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tbat's what categories are for.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's already something similar, or at least overlapping, at Dance personalia that should be considered in this discussion. Shawisland (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks a lot like what list of dancers should look like. Probably should merge that in. (What the heck is a "personalia", though?!) Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personalia doesn't mean what the page author seemed to have in mind, so I've renamed that page to List of dance personalities. In any case, the two articles seem to be good candidates for a merge. Klausness (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not go so far as to say that every category must have an associated list, but even that would make mroe sensethan considering that we must have either the one or the other. DGG (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of verifiable, independent sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Desmond

Not notable. The only source is a single passing mention in the "Atlantic Free Press". A google search yields 16 results (ignoring omitted results). The article has been previously speedied per WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#A7. Rami R 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article also refers to "the cover article "The Business of War" in the December 2006 issue of Men's Magazine", which does not appear to be available online. If Men's Magazine is a reliable source and the level of detail in the article is sufficient, then notability has been established. But I am reluctant to !vote keep without seeing the article. Perhaps a visit to the library is in order. As well, there are WP:COI problems with the article. --Eastmain (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very curious. I had to dig a bit to find Men's Magazine. There is a record in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory for a Canadian publication of that name - but the record is under the title Everyman. A note says 'Formerly (until 1992): Men's Magazine (Canada)'. They might have changed their name back to the former one, but at the moment my sensors are tingling. -- BPMullins | Talk 04:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The magazine is published by Studio Publications in Canada. The article "The Business of War" was written by Ian Tizzard of Tizz Communications. The article was published in the December 2006 issue. http://www.studiopublications.net/ You'll notice the magazine titled "Men's Magazine" which is second from the top on the left... that funny enough is the issue he was featured in. If you look close enough at the cover you'll see on the bottom right where it says "Modern Day Soldiers"... that's the article.
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Milton Hershey

64.9.50.200 (talk · contribs) has complained about the truthfulness of the article, and as a result I am taking this to AfD as no sources for the information can be found. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a hoax created by an SPA, and anyway is unsourced BLP. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Seems blatant enough in its misinformation to qualify as a G3. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the tag was turned down. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most boring hoax article ever.--SevernSevern (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if all claims are true, I'd have to see quite a bit of coverage from reliable sources to convince me of notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, possible hoax. Macy (Review me!) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melt, a president of a Hershey subsidiary would have received *some* news coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snort thanks for the laugh! Google hasn't heard of him and since we can't verify the claims, it needs to go per BLP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no news of him even though the article claims he's currently running for public office. User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports/2008/April#64.9.50.200 is a claim that some of the claims in the article are false. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no reliable, verifiable sources exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Malchik

A likely non-notable living person, furthermore almost all information is un-sourced and likely un-sourceable. All information is based on blogs and web journals, thus delete per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources Hq3473 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW) Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Doncsecz

An obscure potter. No sources except for what can be found in different wikipedias. Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sources are found. There are a few hits out there but nothing obviously backing it up except the linked profile. I want to give it a chance but sourcing would probably need somebody to check a library of Hungarian publications of the era. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The delition is unacceptable. As long as literature, i write. Károly Doncsecz received and famous artist, review this to many book, article and the Slovenski utrinki slovenian tv programme. Doncsecz

The awards of Károly Doncsecz

Live Exhibition of Folk art in Körmend Award, 1978.
Handicraft Exhibition in Szentgotthárd charter, 1978.
KIOSZ silver ring, 1978.
KIOSZ charter, 1982.
Master of Folk Art, 1984.
Ágoston Pável Memorial plaquette
Congress VIII. of HNF Award, 1985.
To the Raba country honours, 1999.
Order Vitéz 2001.

If he was famous and notable as you say it won't be hard to cite reliable written sources to confirm this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a famous artist, received several awards, there is a permanent exhibition of his works. I see several sources in the article, maybe it would be useful if the ISBN/ISSN of those publications were added, but I have no reason to doubt that they exist. – Alensha ^talk 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable for now. Revisit in 6 months if sources don't improve. Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are sufficient sources now. --Hkoala (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from that user:Doncsecz have obvious reasons to spread the word, K.D. appears to be a genuine artist, backed by plenty of unrelated sources (at least I checked the Hungarian ones, a dozen at least). Apart from existence he seems to be important enough to keep. --grin ✎ 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A serious edit is necessary, but it seems he was an important representative of folk art in Hungary, so I don't think deletion is the propper way to go. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - traditions and traditional social values, genuine artist, awards, Master of Folk Art (important in international culture) Tamas Szabo (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see the sources. --Marcuspater (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how the question of notability could be raised. Adam78 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The article needs some work, but that in itself is no reason to delete it. There is clearly no consensus here to delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Beer and Hot Wings Show

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show

Article recreated for a second time despite being deleted by AFD process (see first AFD and second AFD) with no deletion review. The new article still does not address the concerns raised of establishing notability or providing reliable third-party references. I did not tag it for speedy deletion G4 because it has been a year since the previous AFDs and the content may have changed. Khatru2 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This radio show is on over fifteen stations. I've listened for over three years and I know many people who go there for information about whats going on and what stuff means. It is very hard to get sources for the information because it is all said over the air. --Computergeek1507 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but fix up. Syndicated, so it is probably notable. Cut out most of the article though--SevernSevern (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fix, and continue to strongly enforce verifiability policies with regards to this article. There is a long list of MySpace links here as well, which I believe we can do without. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is apparently syndicated as far away as Vermont. Sounds notable enough to me. The discussion page makes mention of them vandalising their own page, but that is no reason to delete the article. -Verdatum (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This show referenced wikipedia many times this morning. Segelflugzeugwettbewerber (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and that makes the article notable how?--Rtphokie (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:N, I'm not finding any verifiable sources. Wikipedia notability standards don't grant any exceptions to radio shows.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationally syndicated show has notability, I've added a few reliable secondary sources to the article and a couple of reliable primary sources as well. - Dravecky (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What reliable sources were added? The Philadelphia Daily News article doesn't appear to have anything to do with this subject. The Post and Courier is about a station format change and while it mentions this show, it really doesn't establish it's notability. The rest of the references added in the past few days are not 3rd party and either come from the official show pages or station schedule pages. For a syndicated show, reliable sources establishing notability should be easier to come by.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The Daily News article is a radio column that includes this: "The Free Beer & Hot Wings Show is coming to WMGK (102.9-FM) on July 30. The syndicated radio show, based in Michigan, is hosted by Gregg Daniels (aka "Free Beer"), Chris Michels (aka "Hot Wings") and Eric Zane, and airs Monday-Thursdays, 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. The show was heard on the former 97.5 The Hawk." The Grand Haven Tribune covers the show in depth and detail. Other secondary sources establish the various stations on which the show can be heard and provide reference for various facts in the article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep show is definitely noteable, and I am sure if someone looked, they would find the necessary sources. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's the responsibility of those who want the article included/kept to come up with sources. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stood up for it last time it was here for AFD and am here again. The show has grown even more since the last time bringing on a few more affiliates, and only being dropped by 2, one because the affiliate changed format and the other because it was just stupid to put on in the manner they do so they got no ratings. They may not be on a Howard Stern level of notability but they have a huge following across the country even in places they don't syndicate to. The reason there aren't complete sources for all of the things is because of the fact the only true reference would be a podcast of that specific broadcast to get proof of some of these. Yes the page needs to get a little spring cleaning done to it, but it doesn't diserve to be deleted. There is proof it has grown in being noteworthy here even with the fact there is more support than just me and a logged IP as it was last time. I have little faith in this whole Wiki system here so I am not holding my breath on the concept this may stick but I do believe every once in a while the right thing gets done. --Assassin Haiku (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who endorses the inclusion of this article, I feel compelled to say that if the only way you can verify something is by listening to the podcast, then that material probably should not be added in the first place. As a general rule of thumb we work from published third party sources, not primary sources. This allows us to avoid placing WP:UNDUE weight on certain content and helps to prevent quality articles from degrading into fan-pages loaded down with unnecessary trivia. Don't lose hope, but don't misinterpret the mission of the project either. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is definitely relevant. Granted, there aren't a ton of "third-party" references attached to this article, but the show is relevant. In just 4 years, it has grown to 16 markets now (they've added six since the last time it was up for deletion), and it keeps getting stronger. I've been listening to the show for over 2 years since it's come to Albany, and I will admit, it's not for everyone. But, there are people out there who find it entertaining, as well as a show that's good at heart. They do excellent work for Ataxia-telangiectasia, as well as their Holiday Break-Ins they do at Christmas time (giving Christmas presents to those less fortunate). They do this not only Grand Rapids, but ALL markets (with the help of local law enforcement, friends of people who have fallen on hard times, and the radio stations where the show is heard). I'd say that's relevant enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia for crying out loud. I've seen articles with one sentence written in the subject on this site, and the least that could happen is keeping a page that is actually quite informative to people who are receiving the show in a new market. Sowie05 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, if you now look, there are plenty of third-party sources that would merit keeping this articleSowie05 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the size of their listening area, I also believe that they should be mentioned for their charity work. They've done a great deal trying to raise awareness about Ataxia-Telangiectasia and are closely associated with the A-T Children's Project. The Free Beer and Hot Wings Team is already being organized for the 2009 Disney Marathon (verified here: http://www.communityatcp.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=793&srcid=795&frtid=222 .) Last year's team raised almost $50,000. The holiday break-in is an orchestrated event across all listening areas by the radio show. All items given are donated and all the people helping out are volunteers. Anneten (talk)
Keep- If we wanted well researched and documented articles, we would read Encyclopedia Brittanica. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Wikipedia is user generated...a hangout for fact checker flunkies. I only come here as a result of some humerous link from another site, as this place is often the source of a good laugh. That being said, the Free Beer and Hotwings Show is a solid source of entertainment that does have a wide following and broadcast range. I'm sure they are more notable and relevant than some celebrities listed on Wiki (see Nicole Richie). They also do great charity work as mentioned above. This deletion issue has generated a fair amount of broadcasted publicity as well. In the words of the viral video Brittany Spears fan, "Leave Free Beer and Hotwings alone". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grc207 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's definitely note worthy as they do a lot of charity work in several states. Here is an interview with the hosts providing some of those details. http://www.bitboard.com/spotlight/freebeer.htm comment added by Werdtoyadonkay (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalija Šeruga

A non-notable Slovenian artists. No sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. I'll just do a redirect to Henry Martin (song), though. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Martyn (ballad)

This article duplicated an existing article - Henry Martin (song) - without adding any new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogg (talk • contribs)

Weak delete. Henry Martin (song) already exists, and is more thorough. The "Martin" spelling also gets more ghits, both in general and on the song (the other gets a lot on Henry Martyn, who is someone unrelated, rather than on the song). However, Martyn seems to be an alternate spelling (see this version), so if this article is deleted someone ought to put a "not to be confused with" on Henry Martyn. This article had one or two new facts that I checked out and added into Henry Martin, so that they'll appear in whichever version is kept. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a hatnote to Henry Martyn per Anturiaethwr. Since "Martyn" is what appears in Child, I think it would be a good idea to also acknowledge the alternative spelling in the first sentence of Henry Martin (song): "Henry Martin" (or "Henry Martyn") is a traditional Scottish folk song … Deor (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Child uses the title Henry Martyn, isn't that enough to move the existing article there, with a redirect from Henry Martin? -- BPMullins | Talk 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most familiar modern versions, referred to in the article nominated here (Joan Baez (album), Black-edged Visiting Card), are titled "Henry Martin"; and Child includes a number of versions that feature names completely different from both "Henry Martyn" and "Henry Martin". Apart from its being a better article, I think Henry Martin (song) is the better candidate for the article's title, as long as it's pointed to by a hatnote at Henry Martyn and a link at the Henry Martin disambiguation page. Deor (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll back down and endorse the merge at Henry Martin. As you imply it's much of a muchness anyway. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only reason I didn't say "merge" is that there doesn't seem much there to merge. And a redirect seems unnecessary, since "Henry Martyn (ballad)" seems a more unlikely search term than plain "Henry Martyn," which is taken care of by the hatnote at Henry Martyn. Deor (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added a hatnote to mention "Henry Martyn" within the "Henry Martin" article. Ogg (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Why is this even at AfD? If it's the same song, merge and redirect.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fabrictramp. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fabrictramp & Stifle. Laetoli (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author has reposted article as List of some notable dancers. That solves the NPOV problem; someone else can take up any other issues with the new article. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best Dancers

Given the title, it's necessarily subjective, in violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I agree, the title makes this a very subjective list and there's probably no way to make it neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly violates WP:NPOV ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Inherently POV. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is a first, a combination of someone's opinion and Wikipedia articles. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is subjective (just who determines are the "best dancers"?) and is filled with POV Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for what I would hope are pretty obvious reasons. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A43 (software)

Delete non-notable software. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software that is not sufficiently established. Article does not give any hint as to the program's relevance. --Abrech (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in any way and not a hint of an assertion. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing for WP:N at the moment

Delete - Not notable, fails WP:N. Macy (Review me!) 23:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Macy. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. The relevant passage at the end of the sixth book of The Golden Ass (1566 English translation) reads:

But one of the theeves after every man had declared his judgement, did speake in this manner: it is not convenient unto the oath of our company, to suffer you to waxe more cruell then the quality of the offence doth merit, for I would that shee should not be hanged nor burned, nor throwne to beasts, nor dye any sodaine death, but by my council I would have her punished according to her desert. You know well what you have determined already of this dull Asse, that eateth more then he is worth, that faineth lamenesse, and that was the cause of the flying away of the Maid: my mind is that he shall be slaine to morrow, and when all the guts and entrailes of his body is taken out, let the Maide be sowne into his belly, then let us lay them upon a great stone against the broiling heate of the Sunne, so they shall both sustaine all the punishments which you have ordained: for first the Asse shall be slaine as you have determined, and she shall have her members torne and gnawn with wild beasts, when as she is bitten and rent with wormes, shee shall endure the paine of the fire, when as the broyling heat of the Sunne shall scortch and parch the belly of the Asse, shee shall abide the gallows when the Dogs and Vultures shall have the guts of her body hanging in their ravenous mouthes. (emphasis by closing admin)

As one can see, the author has a fictional character in his novel come up with the idea for this execution method. There's no indication that it was ever put into practice in real life, as the article asserts. Accordingly, the subject is unverifiable as a real execution method, and it seems that nobody argues that it is notable as a fictional execution method. Sandstein (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure in animal skin

Please, delete this! No source from July 2007. How Come????????????????? 200.214.44.134 (talk · contribs) Cut-and-pasted here from article itself. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's got a source: not a particularly specific citation, but Apuleius is a pretty venerable source. Be nice to have more than just him, but for a stub, that's enough for me for presumptive notability. Remember, per policy being short is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep. I don't have a copy of Apuleius handy, but I'll grab one the next time I have a chance and see if I can improve the cite. This article could use a better title, but I don't know what it would be. (And I really wish I hadn't followed some of those links just before turning in...) -- BPMullins | Talk 04:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ruusan

No sources, no notability, just plot summary. Appearing in multiple works of fiction doesn't warrant having an article. This is in-universe trivia/summary. --EEMIV (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to New Sith Wars as a more general subject. Reviews of the books and major fansites like TheForce.Net could be sources of independent coverage, if someone wants to look. --DocumentN (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that bugs me is that there are a lot of redirects for characters, locations and events in the New Sith Wars stories that are currently pointing to random related articles; there doesn't seem to be any consistency in where to redirect them. --DocumentN (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably) or merge to one of the works of fiction that covers it. Fictional subjects like this one have to be written about in a way that demonstrates some kind of real-world notability, which hasn't been done here. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Star Wars planets (R-S)#Ruusan is one candidate for where to merge it. --DocumentN (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would recommend transwikification to Wookieepedia but it's already there, so delete. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot w/o reliable evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darth Bane makes a lot of sense. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusions in Wikipedia. Dgf32 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Redirect could also be appropriate following deletion. Or simply replace the page as it exists with a redirect to Darth Bane. Dgf32 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Education Society's College of Pharmacy ( B.Pharm.)A/P Narhe, Pune 411041

I realize full well that articles ought to be given a chance to develop. However, I do not know that a small institution that is less than one year old will be able to pass the threshold of notability, no matter how long it is given to develop. Pastordavid (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ADVERT created by SPA User:Abhinavpharmacy with an obvious COI. Further, the article cannot possibly survive under the given title. Also, here-today-gone-tomorrow "colleges" are a feature of the Indian vocational-training landscape, and if this isn't one of them, the article will come back in a couple of years. No need to keep the advert around until then. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by long precedent tertiary degree awarding bodies are notable. The advert/spam content was easily fixed as was the naming problem. TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent that all tertiary schools which confer degrees can certainly be shown to be notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to be dense here, but where in the notability guidelines would one find that precedent? I cannot seem to find that written anywhere, but could just be looking in the wrong places. Pastordavid (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are not being dense at all. It is not written down but notability has been established by, as I say, "by long precedent". There are many subjects that through many AfDs have de facto been established as notable even if not de jure. Examples, outside of education, are:

inhabited settlements
numbered roads
airports
railway stations
super-regional malls
peers of the realm
listed national heritage buildings and sites
government organisations
species of fauna and flora

HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sort of. Much of the above I would find on WP:NOTE (or the subpages), or WP:OUTCOMES. But I see nothing about the granting of degrees making a school inherently notable. Indeed, I don't even see anything about that in the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOL applies to primary and secondary education but not to tertiary - perhaps we should fix that. TerriersFan (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be nice to have something written down somewhere about it, rather than an unwritten rule/guideline. Pastordavid (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:School, IMHO, is that there are deeply-entrenched factions within the community who continue to battle over the wording, apparently concerned that the slightest concession will cause their side to lose ground and go down the slippery slope. The language and intention of WP:School is constantly changing, to the extent that I do not even make reference to it anymore; as inevitably, as soon as I do, somebody can use the "current" wording of it against my position. That all aside, it has been shown by a preponderance of evidence, in the form of closed AfD's, that certain classes of educational institutions are always kept at AfD. Such is true of high schools, and any tertiary school that confers degrees. You can find that in the history of WP:School; but as I said, putting it back there will only result in it being removed again. This does not mean that there is no concensus on the matter, it just means that it is impossible to keep ahead of the factions who oppose it, effecively creating a force majeure. The guideline is quite in effect, however, as TerriersFan says, de facto, although not de jure. (I think TF is quoting me on that, no?). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No significant independent coverage. Pigman☿ 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Courtney

Vanity article for nonnotable actress created by blocked puppetmaster and his socks. User has previously written Kelly Taylor (actress) and James Evans (actor), both of which were deleted as nonnotable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has quite a few roles, but nothing seems to bring her up to notability guidelines yet (although the multiple Tom Goes to the Mayor roles might bring her close). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per speedy G5 if the user is blocked. Otherwise enforce WP:BLP, and since this article has zero biographical content to stubbify the article to, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears to have an extensive list of television and film appearances, and not all of them appear to be just extras or bit roles. The enforcement of WP:BLP goes without saying, as this policy applies to any and all biographical articles about living people. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of her roles are notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to excuse me if I disagree, I believe her voice acting to be notable enough, much more so than the average Seiyū we tend to cover. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/comedy2.html provides a bit of notability. Don't know the area, so no idea how much. But I recognize some of the judges... Hobit (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A runner up in a contest judged by c-list celebrities does not make her notable. Anyway, that link mentions her once and doesn't detail anything she did or why anybody would care. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice to recreation. Seems to be just under the notability bar, but that can change quickly, especially with growing actors. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Coccyx Bloccyx. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage that is required by WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Most of the roles looks not really major safe for perhaps Melvin Goes to Dinner, but that last may be the reason for the neutral vote. --JForget 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11 and A7. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIYU

A non-notable organization. Only 144 google hits Dcooper (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable. Nothing salvageable here.--SevernSevern (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Rwandan Genocide with a redirect (See Rwandan Genocide#Bibliography). Please make any appropriate fixes if necessary. --JForget 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide

Disputed prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to, this material should be sourced within Rwandan Genocide or deleted. There's no reason to maintain a seperate list of references outside of the article itself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. Name of three books do not deserve for a separate article. It should be mentioned in the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rwandan genocide, where mentioning books written by/about those caught up in the event would be appropriate. MeegsC | Talk 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rwandan genocide per MeggsC. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joan_of_Arc_bibliography, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air pollution dispersion modeling books and others in Category:Bibliographies by subject. WP:CLS should probably provide clearer guidance on bibliographies. This is an important topic and there are more than three books that have covered it; it needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per my argument in the discussion section. The person who says delete because three books (on the rise) do not deserve a separate article may want to consider the relevance of these to the filmography. If these reflections find context within the main-article's political and statistical references there can be no surprise, nor uproar. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if expanded. I am not happy with these articles; we keep them in article space, but we need some better way of handling them. I think the ideal way is subpages. The only way they can really e justified is as spinouts, and that usually requires a mch larger amount of material than here. DGG (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rwandan genocide. Having this separate seems dysfunctional. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete for sure. This is still an expansive thing to include in an article in itself though. I am not sure what the difference is with an article, and a subpage (see above). I thought this is basically what this was, a subsection. Does it really pain Wikipedia to keep subarticles within articles. Is it not their context which qualifies the Wiki pages as articles, subarticles, subpages...? I suppose it is a sort of non article though. As long as the content is kept I dont really care. If it is on the main article page or if it gets its own. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rwandan Genocide. I don't see how this is a "how to" but I agree with the nominator that this material has a place in the Rwandan Genocide article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALBW

No assertion of notability for this piece of software. Pastordavid (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aedas

Firm of architects. Repost after shorter versions were reposted as spam. Is it still spam? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, they are trivially verifiable as an important architectural firm. The article is full of PRcruft, but it wouldn't take much to trim out big swaths of astroturf. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hmmm - keep, by a hair this one - lots of discussion about partnerships with award winners and various staff who have won awards - can't see any for the actual firm itself. However, any architectural firm that is operating truly globally is pretty notable really, and I know the Beetham tower in Liverpool has won awards and has received some serious architectural periodical exposure - they're just not included in the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can someone give me some help with this rather than demanding deletion? What does it take to make this acceptable? I have looked at other pages for architectural firms and they read pretty much like this one; in some cases the pages tell you very little about the company. I will be working on adding more pages relating to the work of Aedas and cross referencing them as and when the work is complete on each building and related awards. Deevincentday (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rome was not built in a day as they say and at present I have only the existing content on Wikipedia to refer to. I have gathered information relating to buildings and Awards which I will work on shortly. I also have images to add. User Stifle has described the page as an advert without qualification. This was not written as an advert and contains a lot of historical content. Aedas is the 4th largest architectural firm in the world (1st in Britain) both in income and number of architects employed with offices in many emerging markets such as Russia and Poland. It is therefore not insignificant and certainly merits an entry in Wikipedia. Indeed one problem I have is that Aedas have won many awards I simply don't have the time to get them all on here at once as my day job has to take priority. I would prefer to keep this page and work on it to improve the content rather than having to start from scratch again. I based this article on the presentation of Gillespie Kidd & Coia's page but changed the order of the content. Deevincentday (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page is evidently being worked on and has changed since originally submitted. I like the buildings designed by Aedas and would hardly describe them as being trivially verifiable indeed they are far from trivial. In addition to West Tower in Liverpool, their building in Leeds, Bridgewater House, has also won awards and is considered iconic. Let this page stand and give the author a chance to improve on it. - SheffieldHoop (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ummmm I am surprised at the earlier comment "they are trivially verifiable as an important architectural firm" they are in 4th position of top Architectural firms in the world and that is verifiable and is certainly not trivial. Agreed the PR speak needs editing but I see the author is willing to take advice and is keen to develop this body of work. This should be encouraged not discouraged! Living in Sheffield I have been observing the progress of Wicker Riverside which is a real landmark on the banks of the Don. I did not know it was an Aedas designed building until I looked at this page so I have learnt something from reading it. - BuildingFreak (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Technology Student Association

This was PRODed and restored at DRV so now we're here. RS coverage is trivial and per WP:ORG, individual chapters of local orgs are rarely notable. No evidence this is an exception. I do not think this should be a merge since the main article does not cover individual chapters, nor should it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." Deor (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an easy one. Delete it.--SevernSevern (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SevernSevern. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local chapters of national bodies need to separately meet WP:ORG and this one doesn't, at least at present. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus leans to delete. Sole claim of notability in the article is producing a track on the Hustle & Flow (soundtrack). Note: Soundtrack did not win Academy Award, the film did and a different song from the soundtrack did. Pigman☿ 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kadis & Sean

I deleted this article as an expired prod, and the author later contacted me about it. I didn't bother to read through all his comments, and I have no opinion on the article's contents. This is a purely procedural nomination. JIP | Talk 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this article among their peer group they are probably notable. They are on MySpace and indeed are in my friends list!! I have heard some of the tracks mentioned in the article so I believe it is not a hoax. This in itself may not be important but I live in the UK and they are based in Boston MASS. USA. Does this make them notable enough?? My guess is that a lot of Rap artists and producers of note are not featured in Wikipedia which in my view is a shame. - Deevincentday (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Augusto Gemignani

I dont see any indication that this guy is much more notable than your average doctor. His real claim to fame seems to be that he was Sanitary Director (?) of an Italian hospital (that doesn't have an article). I get the feeling this may have been written by a relative. The only source seems to be a webpage in Italian. He's written some books, it appears, but google isn't giving me much on him or his books, especially when "wikipedia" is subtracted from the search. I don;t think he clears the bar. R. fiend (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source given only mentions him once, in passing, and doesn't assert notability. Furthermore, it seems as though his books have, between them, been cited maybe twice. Not notable. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article, he was head of department of the second largest hospital in Genoa (the fact that we have no article on it is grounds for writing one, not dismissing it), editor-in-chief of the journal Pathologica, then published by the very prestigious publisher, Springer-Verlag, published four history of medicine books and lectured at the University of Genoa, a major Italian university, which makes him substantially "more notable than your average doctor". As he died in 1997 and published in Italian, it is unlikely that Google Scholar is giving accurate citation counts for his books. The current article does seem to have been written by a friend or relative, and could do with substantial pruning. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. It still seems to me like there's little here. Are we to have articles on every person who's ever been head of any department at the second largest hospital in every major city in the world? I really think his position there is pretty irrelevant. Editor of a journal is something, I guess, but how notable is the journal (it doesn't have an article either, for what it's worth)? Lecturing at a university in itself doesn't put him about the average professor. I think the only case he has is as a published author, and I'd like to see evidence of the notability of his books. I also am curious about how much reliable information is available once we remove the personal stuff. -R. fiend (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pathologica is definitely notable and should have an article (indeed I might just start one while I have the details to hand). Springer is one of the top European science publishers, and it's one of the relatively few non-English language journals indexed by Medline. If independent evidence can be found that he was the editor-in-chief, that alone would seem to meet WP:PROF. This should be available, in the journal masthead if nowhere else, but might well not be online. I agree his other positions are relatively marginal with regard to WP:PROF, but go towards a picture of a prominent Italian physician. This seems to me to be the kind of article that needs expert attention from an Italian speaker with access to appropriate resources, not deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little of substance here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Martijn Hoekstra as a blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). Non admin closure.Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism to Fitna

This is 100%, unsalvageable OR. I considered redirecting to Fitna (film), but it just isn't worth it. Also has no references. ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is an interesting read, sensible and well expressed, and worth publishing in the right forum; but it is a personal essay or original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinion pieces on current affairs. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were sourced, it could be merged into Fitna (or International reaction to Fitna), but it's OR. I rather suspect someone just needed a webhost for an essay. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is clearly OR, also violates WP:NOT#SOAP, and has no references whatsoever. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - messy, WP:OR, no WP:RS, and WP:SOAP. No mergeable content. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvagable original research soapboxery. DarkAudit (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, and violates WP:NOT#SOAP. Macy (Review me!) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to international reaction to Fitna. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others; looks like WP:SNOWBALL would apply here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per all the reasons given above. Simply not an encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Note that a redirect would not really be appropriate since, being ungrammatical, this is an unlikely search term c.f. Criticism of Fitna. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR, fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A copyright violation, see[5]. So tagged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete with respect to User:Pedro, this clearly meets CSD:A7 as nn web content. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PaulDotCom Security Weekly

Weekly podcast. Failed speedy delete. I honestly don't see any assertion of notability in this, but perhaps I'm missing something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TECHNICAL ERROR Afd discussion not linked from article. SunCreator (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems OK to me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Linking from article is now fixed. SunCreator (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm using WP:Twinkle to submit AfDs and this seems to happen occasionally. Is this a Twinkle problem or something else (ie browser)? Anyone happen to know? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

<---

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

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlen Rondot

AfDs for this article:

Has already been deleted once by AFD consensus:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahlen Rondot. Fails WP:BIO - appeared in a reality show and had some fashion shows that appear to be directly related to America's Next Top Model (the info is unsourced, though.) According to the entry here, she has left modelling so isn't even pursuing notability in this arena anymore. Delete as not notable. Dawn bard (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Featured multiple times in television shows. Noticed something notable about this person as she gets more page views then Star Trek's James T. Kirk [6]. SunCreator (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was going to add notability tag to article, then I read she been on The Oprah Winfrey Show and The Tyra Banks Show. That's enough notability. SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I respectfully disagree. According to the notability guidelines, models and television personalities have to have had "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," and I don't think that a couple of talk show appearances meets that criteria. --Dawn bard (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple appearances on multiple notable TV shows appears to satisfy that criteria. SunCreator (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Talk show guest doesn't really count as "sinificant role," though, does it? And I have found no evidence that she was on either talk show multiple times. Not to mention that there was a consensus to delete the article at the first AFD nom, and Ms. Rondot has left the modelling business since then, so she's no more notable now than at the previous consensus. Note also that there are precedents for deleting entries for ANTM contestants: Jayla, Bre, Catie, and others. (I do hope I'm not coming across as too harsh and argumentative. I just enjoy the discussion.) --Dawn bard (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - ~~marginally~~ notable: appearances on major talk shows, placed in a major reality show, generated controversy. Needs more cites. I'll take a shot at this one. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found tops of stuff out there -- she has a HUGE fan base, she's been quoted and filmed all over the place. I also took out the obviously wrong information. Of the 12,000 Ghits, at least a few are reliable. She's a keeper in my book. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:55, 19 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, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appearances on major talk shows, appearances on a major reality show, surrounded by controversy, lots of material available. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search gives tons of infomation. Atyndall93 | talk 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable enough.--Berig (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I know this isn't an AfD issue, but the tone of this article needs to be fixed if it's to be kept as it keeps going shes "amazing" the judges were "wowed", etc. Merkin's mum 11:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now, now, this is 100% compliant with WP:HOTTIE. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup per above. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, not really significant, but seems to have breadth of coverage at least. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

relisted --->

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

The result was Close AfD and hit nominator with a stick whilst reminding them to assume good faith and to do their background work before nominating an article for deletion. Nick (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxy-fuel

advertising – i123Pie _bio^contribs 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i don't see how this is advertising, just needs references, and there is absolutely no suggestion it is a hoax. --Jac16888 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the article can be cleaned up then it is a worthwhile article. It needs work on it from parties who know something about the subject, along with sources and categorisation.Londo 06 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaurissan

Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.

This article has no sources to establish its notability to non-Warcraft players and the real world.

This article also contains gamecruft which has the tendency to attract original research, something unwelcome to Wikipedia.

Finally, this article is nearly entirely a plot summary, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and there is no evidence of notability outside of the Warcarft franchise.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin Collins. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Nom's reasons are mostly flawed, for example his opinion that it will attract original research is not a valid reson to delete. That said, the article is lacking in sources and does not assert notability, bith of which are grounds for cleanup. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability has not been established in the article through verifiable sources. If it can be, then the article can be recreated. Ty 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favian Vergara

Very beautiful self-portrait, but not a very notable artist. Kingturtle (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references in reliable sources at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Favian+Vergara --Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stifle. 4 pages of Google News hits shows he exists, but does not show he is notable. Since Wikipedia articles are created from secondary sources those need to be found before we can even assess that we have anything here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deltron Event II

No reliable sources, unreleased for years, no reason to believe will ever see the light of day.

Keep. The band itself has commented on this album many times, as have other sources on-line. Just because it has been "unreleased for years" doesn't warrant deletion. See Chinese Democracy, the GNR album that has been in the works for 13+ years, although that has more publicity around it. White 720 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFF, secondly, the Chinese Democracy article has 55 references to its notability, the Deltron Event II article has zero. If you know of "other sources on-line" throw them in, it could be enough to save it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a few. The article already mentioned several sources albeit not as references. The XM Radio interview, for example, seems credible. White 720 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per White 720. Herunar (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lynn

Fails WP:NOTE. Vanity page. Notability claimed in article, but only refs in Google are to subject's own home page. Subject seems to be minor cabaret artiste. Subject's appearances in lightweight TV programs, appearances in minor pantomime, etc appear exaggerated (eg, claim to be Bafta-winning in fact relates to an entire TV series, not subject's small role in one episode). Possibly WP:AUTO New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated as and when sufficient reliable information exists, as opposed to conjecture. Neıl ☎ 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the New (2008 album)

no sources. Unable to verify existence of album on group's website. Kww (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the album exists yet; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CD is foreshadowed in the liner notes for the Days on the New "Red" Album - it mentions a future "Purple" album.--SevernSevern (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That does nothing to satisfy the notability concerns. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in indepentant reliable sources provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a source from a credible music online publication that confirms this album as a future release. I will also include additional sources in the near future to reinforce this.--Fwc83 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.73.27 (talk) [reply]

Comment: The article states that, as of January 2007, the unsigned artist planned to record the album. A future album, per WP:Music#Albums, requires a confirmed release date in the near future, confirmed by reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the band's article for the time being, until more information is provided about the album and thus to pass WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Singularity. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Youth Soccer Association

Not international, not national, not state-wide, not even tri-county. This is a very localized association. Non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local youth sports organization. -- BPMullins | Talk 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be non-notable. Bettia ^(talk) 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G7 (author requested deletion) by User:Moonriddengirl. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Täändenziell Geil!

not in english – i123Pie _bio^contribs 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not per nom (pages not in English go to WP:PNT), but because it's yet another band whose only hits are their MySpace page and their Wikipedia article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. May be speediable unless you get an admin who thinks "die band schon viel erfolg gehabt" is an assertion of notability as opposed to a blatant exaggeration. cab (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in the speedy deletion criteria is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" which I think applies to this article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for translation Looks like a typical A7 speedy band, but tagging for translation should have been done first. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Translated and found wanting Concur with speedy endorsements above and below. DarkAudit (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. The phrase quoted by CaliforniaAliBaba does not appear to be specific enough to be considered an assertion of notability, and the lack of results on Google and Yahoo searches (only results are on Myspace, no independent reliable sources) is another indication that the band is not notable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, so tagged. It is indeed a typical A7 speedy band. "New band from Hamburg; with a perfect tone from (gloechen) they have had a great success" plus names of two songs. No references, only hits Myspace. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squales and Whids

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No hint in google search [7], [8]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield: Saving Arlene

game was never released: http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/garfield2savingarleene/similar.html?mode=versions&om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=headerimage;more MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased game, hasn't received coverage in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The crystal ball sees things that might be, and things that might have been, but Wikipedia wants to see neither. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dean (artist)

No sign of any importance, spam. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is an SPA (exactly one contribution- creating the article). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity autobiography, NN artist. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article, Not Notable. --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable autobiography. ~ mazca ^talk 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- NN Stanley011 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Possibly expand scope to List of entomological publishers. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British entomological publishers

See WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK. Not sure if these companies are even notable. Also, seems pretty random; we don't have List of American entomological publishers, or even List of entomological publishers. Delete. ~EdGl (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the individual companies just have to be suitable, content, not individually notable (though at least some of them are). That we don't have an article on American, (and others) can be remedied easily enough in the obvious way--or by expanding the scope of this article to international.DGG (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not indiscriminate or random. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are entomological publishers notable enough to warrant a list? Wikipedia is not a directory of book publishers in RandomFieldX, even on an international scale. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially random list, as indictaed by nom. Eusebeus (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's points. Would be very useful to those in that field.--Alf ^melmac 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verifiable). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guanikeyu

I am nominating this article for deletion for the following reasons: Hoax, unsourced and unverifiable. This is about a self proclaimed Leader of the Taino tribes of Puerto Rico. Anyone can self proclaim to be the leader of anything for that matter. The External links are of a website created by the same person. There is no proof of what this person claims to be and Wikipedia is not a media to promote those who self procliam themselves to be something which they are not. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD tag was removed; I reinserted it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Reilly (Northern Irish politician)

Non-notable local councillor, no references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:N and WP:BIO#Politicians. At first glance, I thought that he looked notable for having achieved some coverage of his view on EU funding, but the reference for that section turns out to be to just a link to the homepage of a UKIP blog (http://ukipswindonsouth.blogspot.com/). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. At first glance, he may seem notable because he has been covered multiple times as a result of his job as a politician. But there isn't much in the way of covering what he has done, or anything that makes him stand out from other politicians. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to inherent notability under WP:BIO, and insufficient apparent coverage to meet WP:N. No prejudice against re-creation if coverage is found. As an aside, I really like referring to defeated incumbents as being "eliminated". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a consequence of the single transferable vote system used in Ireland, north and south. Having lowest-placed candidates eliminated at the end of a round of vote-counting (with their votes then redistributed) is a huge improvement on the other sort of elimination, which unfortunately was not unknown in Ireland at various points in the 20th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defection to UKIP generated some small attention, and being the only UKIP candidate contesting the Assembly election generated this article which basically confirms the substance of the current article, but this isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Warofdreams talk 01:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unwilling to merge unverifiable information. Neıl ☎ 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Demo

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable demo. No coverage in reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all if any salvageable information to Beck. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing sourced = nothing salvagable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N Roll Worship Circus

Article with no independent reliable sources (jesusfreakhideout.com is not reliable) on a band that peaked at #31 on Billboard's contemporary Christian album chart, which is not exactly the Hot 100. Started by user:Jason Gastrich, which takes me back a bit. Has been used to attack a member of the band that this band changed to, leading to an OTRS complaint. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #2 which states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart" which is satisfied by Billboard's contemporary Christian album chart and is verified here. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline, where are the reliable independent secondary sources? And do you really think that a charting just once,, that low, on a chart that specific, is what people had in mind? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC simply states "any". It does not currently restrict charts. Here is a link directly from billboard [9] , the publisher of the chart. Additionally, notability is asserted by this winning of a Dove Award by the Gospel Music Association which meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #8. So, the band meets two separate criteria of the guidelines that establish notability for bands. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to think that if a band has had their albums reviewed by something as mainstream as Allmusic.com then it's pretty much a given that they are notable enough to merit an article on wikipedia. A quick google search indicates that they have indeed been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable sources such as this, this, this and various more on top of the reviews here on Allmusic. Clearly qualifies as notable per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. Can I also point out that I'm not a Christian and have not even heard of the band before seeing this afd? It took me less than a minute to google them up to verify their notability. Just saying. --Bardin (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole R. Wingate

Speedy delete declined. Subject has almost zero google hits and none are in any way notable or usable as a reference. The external link provided is apparently a page with only pictures, and that itself is broken. Written a little as self-promotion. Tan | 39 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Home page is not third-party nor reliable. All articles that can be found point to her as one of many artists who have participated in a local exhibition, which is not grounds for notability. Only hit on Lexis global news search through all records and dates is a listing of students with perfect attendance, which is also not grounds for notability. No other third-party sources exist. Staeiou (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. SunCreator (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Finger Think Tank

non-notable. SFTT has done nothing earth shattering, and gets only ~50 google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Duffy (Irish Artist)

Non-notable Irish artist. The only reference is this brief directory entry, so he fails WP:BIO. I PRODded the article a few weeks ago, but the PROD tag was later removed without comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability doubtful. SunCreator (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN (yet) Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the one link is a registration site for artists to promote themselves. ww2censor (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, non notable biography. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Dudley Binsted

Contested prod, removed by author. Non-notable Red Cross worker. Wiki is not a memorial. 0 actual hits, no news. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. DarkAudit (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. SunCreator (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, but please do the necessary clean-up and other work to make it more verifiabile, less cruft and less messy.--JForget 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Arda

Delete Unbelievable amount of both fan and listcruft; as someone not deeply emerged in Lord of the Rings lore, I have no idea what "Arda" even is. Incredibly low activity page; while that isn't necessarily grounds for deletion, I believe it is a clear indication of how non-notable this subject is. Does a poor job (if it can even be called a job) of explaining subject matter to those outside of the "fandom." ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure fancruft, no references or real-world notability, not much in terms of actual content either. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some physics articles also rely on previous knowledge (explaining subject matter to those outside of the "fandom."), and context is provided in the first paragraph. That the article has equivalents or translations in Czech, German, Luxembourgish and Swedish shows its wide appeal. And, as always, WP:NOT#PAPER. Article could do with a cleanup, however. — Itai (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because "Wikipedia isn't on paper" doesn't mean you can make topics about anything. And equivalents in other languages do not assert notability, just as popularity doesn't. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If this article was called "List of places in Arda" and confined to blue-linked articles, it would probably not be nominated. Is it kosher to make this article a redirect to the category Middle-earth realms? Blast Ulna (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable - it's a list of separately notable fictional places - and seriously clean up. A merge is not out of order. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 7 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, jonny-m t 13:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be an annotated list of articles, useful for navigation and acceptable per WP:LIST. The low activity may be explained if this is a mature list that doesn't need much further expansion. --Itub (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Itub. Seems like a valid annotated list for navigation. Maybe should have "List of..." in the title, but that's an editorial decision.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a list of placenames, a number of which appear only in the appendices to LOtR, on maps in the books and in Chris Tolkien's annotations. Many of the locations are communities, not "realms" -- in some cases, not even that organized -- and any inference that they constituted independent nations in any way is sheer speculation. It is not kept up to date, given the number of redirects if you hit the links. This list is also duplicated in several other articles, including Beleriand, Minor places in Arda, Minor places in Middle-earth and Minor places in Beleriand. (And could some of the Keep proponents elaborate on their "seems likes?" Are those guesses or backed by researching the point?) RGTraynor 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Duplication may be an issue here, in fact it may be something that needs broader attention then just this article. Your comment is also the first and only policy based delete issue raised so far, since it wasn't mentioned I didn't go searching for every list of middle earth places. On that thought i'd still lean to asking the project involved to give attention to the duplication and merge/trim if needed. As to the use of the phrase "seems to..." I often use qualifiers like that because, with the exception of the most blatent violations, these are opinions. I try not to be dogmatic when it's not needed. After all I say keep, but that doesn't mean you don't have some valid points to raise.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I certainly don't have an objection to merging into the relevant articles, although from a casual glance they already seem to have such information as this one contains. RGTraynor 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The title might be better since the setting is more usually known as Middle-Earth. The rest is a matter of improvement rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree also with Itub. A tweak needed here and there, but otherwise... --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate general article. Some of the individual ones are also notable, but that's no reason not to have this--perhaps some of the less notable individual ones will end up being merged here. the duplication argument doesnt hold. Every country in the article on, say, Asia also has an article of its own. DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The chronological information makes this more than just a list. The introduction perhaps needs some context, but that can be fixed. The point of an encyclopedia isn't to be obvious to someone who wanders in accidentally, but to allow the reader to learn about something. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid annotated list, useful and complete. IMO should have 'list of' in its title, but this is a style issue, not a deletion one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CLS SunCreator (talk)
Delete (Note: I am a Tolkien fan and a member of WP:WikiProject Middle-earth, which BTW should have been informed of the nomination.) Simple lists like this are inappropriate in case of fictional topics, especially with Tolkien's works: a) simple links to separate articles are useless, considering that most of them are candidates for merging; b) many of the notes currently attached to entries tend to drift into OR, and this cannot be emended without whole passages of annotation; c) as mentioned above, the list mixes up realms, regions and nations; d) possibly some appropriate replacement will be created in future, if ever some "Geography of Middle-earth" will be created (as a merge target for articles that do not deserve separate pages and at the same time do not suit "Minor places in ..."); e) as a link farm, it is mostly edited for updates after page moves etc.; f) finally, the page has been virtually replaced by Category:Middle-earth realms and by Template:Arda Realms Age1, Template:Arda Realms Age2, Template:Arda Realms Age3. Súrendil (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Done. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Dead Yet? (video)

The video itself doesn't seem notable outside of the Children of Bodom article, or the article for the track/album. asenine ^t/_c 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Are You Dead Yet?. --Bardin (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, merge and redirect, definitely not notable enough on its own. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kaput

Contested prod, removed by author. concern = Non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC; few ghits and no news articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nom. I just restored the AfD template after it was removed by an IP editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established, basically a vanity page. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:N SunCreator (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Merging can be done at the discretion of the editors, and the article can be listed at WP:PM. After that, what is left can be speedied as housekeeping, if linked to this AfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Evidence of Gender in Central Otago Mining Communities

This is a contested prod. I'd like it to get a wider hearing at an afd, because I'm not so sure it is a personal essay. I can't work out if it is a suitable topic for an article or not, and would like that to be better discussed than the article simply lost through the prod process. Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not so much an essay as a survey of research, but the topic itself is not encyclopedic. Some of this could be used as sources in Central Otago Gold Rush, which at present has negligible cultural information about the miners. If the gender of the Otago gold miners is notable, which I doubt, it is only notable enough for a mention in that article. The central conclusion, "This archaeological evidence provides information which suggests that women played significant labour and social roles within mining communities," is a great topic for an archaeological survey article, but really doesn't seem that unexpected such that it would merit an entire encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge *content* to Central Otago Gold Rush (with appropriate cleanup/wikification of course). The *contents* of the article appear to be fundamentally sound (and all-in-all, I think its a commendable first contribution), but several conclusions (including the title) are patently WP:OR. The bulk of it would however (I think) contribute towards improving/expanding the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article, incorporating the material on the "petticoat pioneers" within the framework of a more general "Social structures" (or whatever) section. The lack of any mention/link to the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article suggests that the new editor might not have been aware of its existence. I've posted a request for content-salvage to Talk:Central Otago Gold Rush#Request for assistance. Too bad the edit histories can't be merged in this case. The new editor should be encouraged to contribute further. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are seeing a number of these school papers, and we need a rule of some sort. the manner of writing is not encyclopedic, but yet its not exactly OR--it's a summary of other people's work. They're too specific, but I'm reluctant to say that we don't want detailed articles.Merge is a possibility, but we'd actually include almost none of it. Can anyone find something specific as a criterion?DGG (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Central Otago Gold Rush - there is some good, well-sourced material in there. dramatic (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Dramatic, or failing that, rewrite as part of a more all-encompassing History of gold mining in New Zealand. Too much good stuff here to waste it with a deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a rewrite along these lines, making it a more general mining history article and removing the specific gender related content. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't tell if this is someone's serious school report, or a spoof article along the lines of "Marxist Influences in Ferris Bueller's Day Off". But either way, not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's well-referenced, and is definitely not a spoof. Having said that, as I pointed out earlier, merging or rescoping this makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Dramatic as Grutness said. Mathmo ^Talk 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge as others have said, there is good information here that should be kept. I think it makes more sense in the main article Central Otago Gold Rush than to be a separate article. Aleta ^Sing 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article about the gold rush, as others have said. It was interesting information, however an encyclopedia article needs to be about a topic, not the archaeological evidence about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wack Pack

~~This article resembles a fansite, primarily consists of original research, and lacks verifiable sources. Nearly all references are from the radio show's official site or fan blogs.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This really isn't a great candidate for deletion. If anything, the article is mostly an atrocious list that needs to be trimmed and possibly merged to a paragraph form, but it's existence is certainly warranted. The topic "Wack Pack" is notable and is a long-existing, huge part of the Howard Stern show. I might agree with more of a list form without the bios for each wack-packer (which I agree are hard to verify), but the article should stay. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 13:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously notable subject; article has too much information to be merged into the The Howard Stern Show article. Does need cleanup and referencing but deletion is not the proper route. Powers ^T 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD is not forced cleanup. Notable radio show hosted by notable host; plenty of news sources available. Nominator should have followed regular procedure and done his own searches prior to nomination. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up, don't delete. Obviously notable. Broooooooce (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathize with the nominator, as the current article is complete (but IMO utterly fascinating) garbage. However, this is an integral, notable, verifiable component of perhaps the most popular radio program in the world. Might want to scrub the article for BLP concerns though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn with the assumption that references like the above will be added to this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:SNOW as a neologism first used the day before the article was created, with no references and no Ghits. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blong

Listed for speedy deletion, speedy denied as this is a neologism that is not obviously ridiculous. Procedural nomination. I have no opinion. KnightLago (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant promotion of an admitted neologism (coined yesterday, apparently), it's a shame this has to stay up for 7 days. Maybe we can agree this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept? Powers ^T 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twing

fails corp/org standards - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below is the concerns I listed on the talk page:
Notability/importance concern
While vertical serach is a valid concept that requires an article, what about this company makes it notable?
Links concern

first link http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2156351 nothing about Twing
second link http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3624377 nothing about Twing.
third link, http://gigaom.com/2005/03/16/3554/, a GigaOM entry, doesn't mention "Twing" at all.

References concern
Both references address search engine theory; the statements utilizing these references do not talk about Twing at all.

Nothing in this article supports the notability of Twing. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Go points Tony, I can't locate anything that would establish notability either.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. I've used this software to search a forum I help run; but it's probably not notable. It does work fairly well so it may become notable in the future, but per WP:Crystal I think it needs to establish some notability first. CredoFromStart ^talk 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the references don't talk about Twing. Notability has not been shown from reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sign of notability. SunCreator (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exient entertainment

Prod was contested. It's a non-notable company without proofs of reliable sources. ~~I suspect the list of developed games are fake.~~ Okay, I saw references but they are still failed to conform with WP:N. Dekisugi (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekisugi,

Exient Entertainment are a legitimate UK based company, who have developed a number of titles for Electronic Arts over the last few years, we have recently been asked by them to build up their profile by ensuring that they receive the accreditation their work deserves.

Best Regards

David Bancroft

Peppermint P

www.peppermintp.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ... and do you have sources for that? Dekisugi (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can contact Companies House in the UK to verify that they are legitimate business through publicly available information, [10]

Exient were previously known as LIVE MEDIA UK LIMITED from 1997 - 2001 [11]

Also in the recent review of FIFA Street 3 on IGN, Exient are actually mentioned in the review. "Nintendo DS developer Exient's usually rocks pretty well in its handheld games like Madden" SOURCE: http://uk.ds.ign.com/articles/855/855726p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the purpose of the article is "to build up their profile by ensuring that they receive the accreditation their work deserves," then it is spam. Notable companies do not need to use Wikipedia to build their profiles. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you were asked by the company to help build its profile, then you have a conflict of interest. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Exient%22+award+site%3Apocketpcmag.com for some of the award nominations. --Eastmain (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, and think that notability has been established. However, I didn't find anything about the company on some news sites where I thought there might be something: http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/search/index.php (the Oxford Mail newspaper), The Guardian and Daily Telegraph. And the company's website appears to be a single page with contact information and not much else. I removed some NPOV text, and I think the article's style is now acceptable. --Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few of their games might be notable, but that doesn't make them notable. The only reference I see for the actual notability of the company is that they came 50th in a list of companies, but all that gets them is two trivial mentions; not the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn. The company has developed some well known games, has won some sort of awards, and is mentioned in several publications, which would suggest notability. But without articles with more depth on the company, what is the article going to be built on apart from the list of developed games and a small profile? I did manage to find this mention but it's still not much. However I am willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt and say keep. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this source on MCV citing the company's success, this one on GDN listing company details and this source from Spong, again verifying information. Admittedly, they haven't produced anything that has reached high critical acclaim, but that shouldn't be a barrier. What would help this article dramatically would be some sources such as developer interviews, company spotlight articles and so on. Gazimoff (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhura

This looks like a non-notable bit of free internet-based software which was released in late 2007. The few references are to lightweight promotional articles rather than serious coverage so I don't think that it passes WP:WEB. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhura is relatively new, but (a) has received critical acclaim from Script Frenzy, Creative Commons, and independent screenwriters/bloggers and (b) has a number of articles coming out in trade publications over the next month. My hope is this satisfies the notability requirement, although hard for me to tell from the text at WP:WEB. The goal here was to provide detailed information on how the product works, not marketing material. We just wanted something similar to the articles describing Google Docs, Final Draft, Celtx, etc. Orion Richardson (talk)

According to this edit: [12] Orion Richardson was involved in producing this software. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you are correct - I am affiliated with Zhura, hence the interest. To help with the notability argument, I've collected some reviews we've gotten:

In the screenwriting community, at least, our reputation and notability is good. Again, I don't know how that relates to Wikipedia notability, but wanted to alert you to it. Orion Richardson (talk)

Keep - at least a couple of those links seem non-trivial, and independent. -- Mark Chovain

Keep - The "non-notable bit of free ..." characterization, above, is specious, gratuitous, and suspect. There is active interest in the screenwriting community in applications like Zhura, Celtx, and Scripped as possible alternatives to costly perennial rivals Movie Magic, Final Draft, and Sophocles. More evidence, a recent review in noted screenwriter John Deer's weblog:

"SCREENWRITING 2.O" Article

-- dkbrklyn (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkowski Michal

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Also no reliable & verifiable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. One contribution author. Visor (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publishing two articles is not enough for notability, not unless it can be demonstrated they had some wide ranging impact.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No censensus to delete on WP:RS/WP:BIO discussion after 16 days. --JForget 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry George (entrepreneur)

Article is purely promotional; subject does not meet notability requirements by a long way; page maintained by the article's subject; subject has promoted himself on many other articles. Claims within article vary between the grossly inflated (his 'status') or demonstrably untrue (1st Civil Partnership in the UK) Strongly suspect articles maintained also by meat - and sock-puppets. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same editor also further self-promoted his business on Mr Gay UK article. Article now brought to WP standards by other editors. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another WP:AUTO, based on the other contributions of the creator. No reliable sources, though notability could be considered marginal considering the state of Mr Gay UK and Bent (magazine), where he is mentioned, and where the account in question has also edited. It doesn't seem like enough to warrant trying to clean up this article, however.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've referenced 9 of the claims with reliable sources (Times, BBC, Yorkshire post), including the civil partnership claim (see the article talk page for caveat). Searching for and reading the references has convinced me the article deserves to be kept as the guy is notable enough. Definitely meets the "basic criteria" at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not sure what category he would fit into for "additional criteria" though. The article is too promotional (mostly in it's phrasing and the silly external links) but that can definitely be corrected by rewording it while sticking closely to the references added. The article is mainly maintained by User_talk:Daxuk. I don't think he is the article's subject although he obviously knows him as he's a photographer and has taken the photographs of him on the page. Ha! (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a meat-puppet query on Daxuk open at this time. IMHO a couple of appearances on low-grade TV shows and a lot of self-promotion doesn't add up to being notable. Civil Partnership claims remain untrue: see article talk page. At best, they were one of dozens of 'first couples'. --Alchemy12 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) I've based my opinion on reading the sources and the criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He meets the criteria because of the Times and Yorkshire Post articles (2.) It would have been fairer, in my opinion, to request the meatpuppet/sockpuppet check [13] first and then nominate the article after you had been proved right. Note that being a meatpuppet (if you're correct) is a bad thing, but the article's subject needs to be assessed on the criteria in Notability (people) (3.) WP: AUTO (if you're correct) is a bad thing as well but it strongly discourages someone from creating their own article rather than forbidding it. Neutrality and verifiability are it's concerns. You have already removed one claim that was not verifiable, which is a good thing, the rest of them seem more verifiable and haven't been removed. If you believe it's not neutral, you could balance it out. Ha! (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I read the sources, too and came to the polar opposite conclusion. Unless this very minor sort of 'personality' qualifies as Notable here these days. If so, I'll quote my own appearance in the Guardian newspaper and set up my own article! (grin) Plus, even the Civil Partnership photos suggested a press/publicity stunt (what was that giant red shoe all about?!) 2) Don't see how you arrive at a scale of fairness on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion. 3) Yes, I could balance it out but a) I wanted the wider WP community to judge it as is and b) a couple of the alleged sock/meatpuppets on related articles have just re-inserted stuff they liked a couple of times. I've better things to do than enter a pointless edit war on an article that may well bite the dust anyway. Whatever, I've simply drawn the article and the editors to the attention of the wider WP community: how it goes from here is not up to me. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Thought I'd have a stab at tweaking the article (I have a cold and nothing more thrilling to do). Reads a bit less like a promo now, hopefully, but still not notable in my books. Others may disagree. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) I don't believe sentences such as the one including the (grin) comment are helpful. I recommend sticking to facts. (2.) What I'm getting at (sorry, I really should have been more open and stated it) is that I think it's possible you're using one (unproven) claim to support the other. If you have proved the puppetry and then done the AfD then your allegation of puppetry wouldn't be an allegation, it would be a proven fact. (3.) I cannot assume good faith in your edits any more. See my comment on IP 81.159.211.87 below. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I have said plainly both here and (I think) on the puppet page that this is my first time doing this. If you can't cut a newbie some slack... I'm pointing out that I believe the article to be iffy and possibly cobbled together my sockpuppets. One may support the other, but I have not made that assertion. That plus your knee-jerk reaction below kinda makes me feel free to set aside WP:AGF for you, too. Jeez! --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can anyone vote on this? New to this. Anyway... Boils down to "has small column in low-circulation publication, been on telly a couple of times, owns a pub, not straight." If that's notable then so are half the people I have ever met. Promo piece and WP:AUTO 81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that from this edit it appears that Alchemy12 and the IP address 81.159.211.87 are the same. The relevant section is "Forgive me if my replies are perhaps not swift. As I say, right now I have to jump through a few hoops to see anything updated on this site. Will have a word with some technical bods. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : please note, I now have an ID as (finally) we have a stable IP address here. Alchemy12 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" (I haven't squashed the two comments together, they were written together like that in the same paragraph). That IP has also made changes to the Terry George article just after Alchemy12 has. In my opinion there's more going on here than a simple AfD. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are one and the same. And yes, I wrote the comment you quoted. I'm hardly hiding that, I said it outright! The battery on my notebook ran out so I switched to my Mac while hunting for the power brick. I guess I was still logged in to WP on one and not on the other, didn't notice. As I don't use the Keep Me Signed In Option (shared computers) it's highly probable. But so what? Is it the vote you don't like? I did ask if I was meant to. Is it me personally you don't like? Bad day? Anyway, all rhetorical. Think it's better to just let you get on with it. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sod it. I'll just delete both alerts if I can. If this is the sort of crap reasonably conscientious editors have to put up with no wonder they're so thin on the ground. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:32, 3 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are at least two reliable sources there (the Times and Yorkshire Post cites) which are full-length articles about the subject, and that makes this a prima facie clear of WP:V and WP:BIO, regardless of the legitimate issues with WP:AUTO and WP:BLP1E. RGTraynor 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 RSs about nothing much amount to nothing much. First civil union is temporary news only. Of course, if it is kept, it can be edited--based on the news sources, the notability if any is running a string of nightclubs. DGG (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ha!, the article easily satisfies the WP:BIO criteria and I see no other issues currently outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place Turn-the-Charm-A-thon

contested prod. Not notable television scheduling information. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Powers ^T 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide. DarkAudit (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned and not notable - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Horlor

WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Article about Sean Horlor written by Sean Horlor. Completely non-notable poet whose two little chapbooks both fail WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the AUTO and COI concerns are legitimate, the reviews of his book Made Beautiful by Use (ISBN 1-897109-13-X) appear to confer some notability. Not sure what the policy is on a valid article that happens to have been written by the subject. Powers ^T 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Verifiable, NPOV, NOR articles are fine. If there are enough sources so that the article can be cleaned up for WP:NPOV by balancing the COI and removing OR, then it should be kept. I, personally, haven't decided if there are enough sources yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Keep. Powers ^T 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the errors in my posting. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's ethical guidelines and understand why it's a conflict of interest for me to post this article, despite keeping it as factual and objective as possible. The reviews of my work posted on Wikipedia are the unsolicited opinions of objective literary critics. My poetry as it appears in the Seminal Anthology is being studied at the University of British Columbia. My work is also being studied by high school students in Nanaimo, Canada, and perhaps other places that I am not aware of. This thankfully proves (to me at least) that I am not "non-notable" or that my books are failures. And hey, detractors and naysayers are a sign that I'm doing something right! Thanks for your feedback! Seanhorlor (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While articles which violate WP:COI and WP:AUTO should always be reviewed for WP:NPOV issues, they don't automatically need to be deleted if valid sources are available. And they are: Xtra! West, The Georgia Straight and This Magazine all come up on the very first page of a Google search on him. And continuing the search, he's been reviewed or published in The Malahat Review, The Claremont Review, Prairie Fire, Grain, Arc Poetry and The Fiddlehead, which is a pretty solidly notable selection of Canadian literary magazines. So all in all, that clears my bar. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bearcat's research that he beat me to. This is fine at the dead minimum for stub-length article, and can always grow later like any other short article. The subject made a mistake in writing it himself, but we don't expect people to know all the rules and special jargon here when starting. Mistakes happen. If the article itself is fine in the end and compliant with our needs and policies, no big deal. Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite violating the Wiki guideline for autobiographies, the author is still notable as stated above. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't really see the article as "bigging up" the subject. References are acceptable in terms of verifiability. Notability already established by Bearcat, would be foolish to delete on WP:COI grounds alone. The editor could find numerous meatpuppets to recreate the article. As long as the editor/subject is made aware of ownership issues then I can't see the article in its current editorial condition being a problem. -- BpEps - t@lk 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several publications in important Canadian literary magazines plus numerous reviews seems to meet the "Creative professionals" additional criteria of WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability guidelines, it appears that the author was unaware of autobiography guidelines. No need to punish him for that. --Beloved Freak 10:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles Resort Canouan Island

Created by user:Raffleseme. So there is blatant COI. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article boarders on being an advert, and all references point back to the resort's website. Hotels in general are a subject where I am fairly ambivalent to notability, and in cases like that I consider the article quality and motive. I cannot see that it really passes the main WP:N guideline, but if it does I am not opposed to recreation of a better version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Barkley

Been three days since the creation of the article, and no notability has been established. Google doesn't come up with anything substantial, nor does Google news. BuddingJournalist 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like self-bio, candidate for speedy deletion.Helixweb (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability outside of his candidacy to independent sources. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guidelines for politicians [14] Qworty (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Not sure what to do with this, but the subject of the article appears to be writing it. See here. I started a discussion here; however, I don't really have experience with COI reports, so I hope that's right. As to the article, I am not sure on notability or not, but the article is written in the "first person"?! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up on those concerns. I've warned him on his user page and have tagged the article for WP:AUTO and WP:COI. He also created all kinds of spamlinks which I've removed from a variety of pages--including the disambiguation page for the name "Ronald," as though he is one of the most famous Ronalds who ever lived! A lot of these associated edits are highly suspicious, and he might be editing under as many as three socks and several ISPs. This is precisely the kind of self-serving stuff that should be scraped from the project and forever salted. I particularly don't care for this variety of aggressive spam. It takes a lot of effort to clean it up. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to help. Incidentally, the article could have encyclopedic value, i.e. if wins and becomes a congressman, then surely reliable sources will be readily available as congressmen do tend to be covered in the news, but we definitely cannot have first person biographies as articles. I suppose he could have a condenses version on his userpage, perhaps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he had been widely commented upon in the press, that might confer notability under WP:BIO. The article at present has no sources at all. Since there is an apparent conflict of interest, that gives us less reason to take the situation on faith. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even with the large number of SPAs, there was a clear consensus that this article fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Blueboy 96 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairinvestment.co.uk

Advert for not specially noatble company. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Smells like spam from miles away.Helixweb (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This page is in accordance with pages on companies in the same industry. Online marketing and search engine marketing is an emerging industry and so of interest to the business and acerdemic world a like. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)— User:Matt edwards 999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Online price comparison is massive in Uk and fairinvestment is one of the big players - other online sites have entries so this page is also of interest. Rachelmason81 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Rachelmason81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not Delete Don't see why this page should be deleted - there are other similar companies who have pages so why delete this one? Becci25 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Becci25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete There are various otehr pages about companies that are very similar to this one so I don't see how it's any different. It seems to provide information that could be useful to the consumer. They also seem to give to a lot of charities, so I say let it be. RachaelElizabeth (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:RachaelElizabeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Do I detect the faint odor of sockpuppetry here? Klausness (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick google search reveals about a bazillion press releases, but no references from any reliable sources. Klausness (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similarly, I find vast numbers of press releases, but nothing independently notable that warrants the business having its own article here. I strongly advise that all those wishing to comment on this AfD familiarise themselves with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Canvassing if they haven't done so already. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Keep and get the odor of dirty socks out with quick and dirty blocks please. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ Let’s begin again… The employees of the company in question feel it is not unreasonable to be considered for entry in Wikipedia, this is based on the fact the company has a unique business model in a young and emerging industry. Currently there are Wikipedia entries for Moneysupermarket, uSwitch, MoneyExpert and reviewcenter.com to name but a few, all of which operate similar business models. There for the argument for inclusion is that the company is a big player in an interesting a researched market, the article is objective and not written as an advert there are other similar companies with pages some of which are considerably smaller than Fair Investment Company and so if Wikipedia wants to provide a true reflection of this market it’s important that Fair Investment Company is included. So far arguments on the other side are “it smells like spam” and something about socks which is ridiculous if not down right arrogant. I'd appreciate a real argument from that side. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrogant? That a bunch of new accounts mysteriously appear just to defend your company? How about a real argument from you? JuJube (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement above speaks for itself. Objectivity and creativity (two words I'm sure are important to Wikipedia) would have meant you'd list what you'd like changed to the article but instead it's just a random bunch of meaningless comments about spam etc... The fact three do not deletes came up is not mysterious but is because they were made by three editorial staff who authored the article and therefore have inherent value in it's publication. If one person would lay down an objective counter to what I've said above I'd be happy to answer this. And 'Spam' is not a counter. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry but bringing multiple people forward from the company to influence the outcome that compromises the forming of consensus of Wikipedians who presumably did not create an account for such a purpose is not only Wikipedia:Canvassing, but also presents Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns if you yourself say they are "employees of the company". The articles you mention as examples are included in Wikipedia because they are supported by independent reliable sources that satisfy the notability critera. It is my opinion that the article doesn't satisfy said criteria. The fact that Fairinvestment is part of this market does not inherently mean it may have an article here. WilliamH (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So how does our article differ from the other organisations mentioned above? Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that pointing to similar articles is not a valid argument. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It differs because they have secondary reliable sources(WP:RS). For example uSwitch has an article in the Times and also one in the Guardian paper(actually looking again, even those may fail WP:RS). Fairinvestment requires reliable source so that it can meet notability(WP:N), if it can't then it most likely it will be deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It differs because myself, and other Wikipedians believe it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. The other articles do so, but because they do, they are irrelevant in terms of this discussion. Similarly, you may wish to read this. WilliamH (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP No evidence provided of verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A press release on the sites linked fail WP:RS. SPA accounts noted above. DarkAudit (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP. A search of Google News UK [15] turns up only 24 unique hits, every single one either a press release or a quote on a web article from the ubiquitous James Caldwell, the outfit's director. None are articles about the company, as WP:RS requires. Mr. Edwards is a new editor -- so no reason to bite - but like others, I strongly recommend that he gain familiarity with the relevant Wikipedia policies, so that he can suggest an actual valid policy ground to keep this article. RGTraynor 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An online services company that does not provide clear indicia of notability. Reads like a press release: Businesses have the ability to transform deprived communities through the intelligent use of resources. The directors of Fair Investment believe strongly that supporting and empowering entrepreneurship within communities provides a more sustainable wealth creation model. . '' - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not delete: I am Editorial Manager of Fairinvestment.co.uk and although I understand the arguments being made, I would really like to take this opportunity to argue the case for Fairinvestment.co.uk having a page on Wikipedia. Firstly, on Fairinvestment.co.uk not being a big player in the financial comparison/news arena: The site attracts 66,000 unique visitors a week and is a Hitwise Top 100 website – the news section alone attracts 7,000 readers a week, and news stories on the website are always high in Google news rankings. For example, by typing in 'car insurance' into Google news, a fairinvestment.co.uk story (about Sainsburys car insurance in fact) is number 2 in the rankings, and if you type in the word 'endowment' a fairinvestment.co.uk story is ranked third (although this may well of changed by the time you read this!).

In terms of Fair Investment and James Caldwell only being quoted in our own releases and stories, I am afraid this is just not true. Our research and comment is well respected by journalists, and used frequently in independent news stories: The links below are just a few recent examples:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/the-english-patient-and-the-rise-of-pmi-plans-765408.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article3290109.ece

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.ten_ways_to_beat_the_credit_crunch.php

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.0.php

http://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/mortgages/105799/55/Insurance_news/Homeowners_urged_to_check_insurance.htm

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/News/article/20071101/a24a6ad4-ea2e-11dc-ab39-0015171400aa/First-time-buyers-not-yet-put-off-by-dip-in-property-market.jsp

http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Fairtrade-and-ethical-investment-a?id_mot=19

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=ifa2006_articleimport&tempPageName=702502

Rachelmason81 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Rachelmason81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Not one of these articles cited were about the subject. Not one. Most didn't even mention the subject in passing. DarkAudit (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similarly, I must also comment that in not one of those articles was the subject the company itself, only citing from it in various degrees of proportion. Compare this with this. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment: This from WP:COI, one of the official Wikipedia guidelines: "If ... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ... then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." (emphasis in the original) RGTraynor 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable company, no legitimate independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete "a unique business model in a young and emerging industry" is a euphemism for saying they aren't notable yet, but hope some publicity here will help. DGG (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many socks voted "Do not Delete" in this AfD debate? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a citation to The Times which is a journal of record. This plus the verifiable facts that the company exists and has been quoted by the UK press on multiple occasions seems ample to demonstrate notability. The existence of COI and the tone of the article are not reasons to delete the article but just reasons to tag or edit it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You added a citation that requires a registration to read. Since I don't work for a library, it's probable that my request for a trial subscription would be denied. Since most editors are likely to be in the same situation, this reference cannot be reasonably vetted. DarkAudit (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see reliable sources which states, Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London.... And note that I do not work for a library either. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colonel Warden's correct that the fact that the link he posted is behind a paywall is irrelevant; the same is still true of the large majority of high quality sources. But it's also available free on the Times' own website here; and Fia more important problem is that it's a mere four sentences which provide no independent analysis, and in fact do little more than confirm that the company exists. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is adequate for the fact which it supports. The coverage is slight so per WP:ORG, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.. We have other sources coming in (see below) and so notability is established. Note that notability is not fame or importance. We merely need to be satisfied that the organisation is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had a chance to read the article in question, it's yet another in a long line of trivial mentions. None of these citations have been 'about the company, but only mentioned in passing as one in a multitude of similar firms. Multiple trivial mentions is still trivial mentions. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my understanding of the citation that I provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we imagine not. RGTraynor 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of imagination, as you insultingly suggest. The paragraph in the Times is clearly about this company. It is not a major feature article on them but I am not suggesting that it is. Their article seems to be a magazine piece covering a variety of financial news. Since the Times considers that the advent of this company was worthy of notice then we should be guided accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph? Out of how many in the article as a whole? They may be mentioned, but the article as a whole is clearly not about this company. Not one of the articles that has been presented as evidence has been about the company. It has all been trivial or incidental. DarkAudit (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given lack of significant independent coverage. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Citation - article written by Bristol Evening Post http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12729815_ITM Rachelmason81 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.194.128 (talk) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Keep as real place, cleanup and move to Maria Auxiliadora, Guanajuato. Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria auxiliadora

No google hits for location. Would need substantial re-write even for stub, no references available. Tan | 39 05:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it WAS sourced, I don't see how some touristy Mexican ghost town is notable.Helixweb (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named, populated places have repeatedly been judged to be notable (WP:OUTCOMES). There are sources for this one—try Googling for "María Auxiliadora" +Guanajuato (note the accent in "María"). The article does need to be rewritten to eliminate the stuff about individual shops, etc., and to be moved to a better title. Deor (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the new Google search - missed the accent! Recommend keep per new sources provided by Deor. Tan | 39 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the naming conventions to know what the title of this article should be. Apparently there are other places, even in Mexico, with this name, so should it be something like María Auxiliadora (Guanajuato, Mexico)? Deor (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, probably Maria Auxiliadora (Mexico). Tan | 39 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 9 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, Blueboy 96 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 08:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Clan

AfDs for this article:

Another non-notable urban exploration-related group. While they have made the news on a few occasions, a large section of the content involves describing their members background, general safety issues (really, don't go into drains when it's raining?), and general graffiti text. This can really be summed up better at urban exploration without mention of the Cave Clan. seicer | talk | contribs 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While not evident in the article, this group features heavily in local press and is regarded by many as a local institution. I understand your concerns. It just needs more work. Dmod (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a self-bio. Don't see any explanation in the article as to how this club could be even remotely notable. If it is featured in local press, like the above user asserted, local sourcing needs to be added to the article, and incorporated into some sort of explanation why any of the rest of us should care.Helixweb (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group are well known throughout Australia, they often get mentioned in the media, and have helped the federal government in Anti-terrorism matters. With members across Australia, and in areas of europe, the US & Canada, they are possibly the largest Urban exploration group in the world. It seems recent deletions and straying from topic have been primarily due to one editor. Once this issue has been resolved I have no doubt the positive editors can make this into an informative and appropriate article. S.Nadir (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- often? Try once in the last 12 months, according to Factiva. Even "urban explorer/exploration" gets more hits. Orderinchaos 09:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't Factiva index financial and commercial news? It's not surprising they only got one hit. S.Nadir (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, seems to be a promotional by a non-notable group. I am aware of them off-wiki but it's really not stuff that would normally be considered within encyclopaedic coverage and would be very difficult indeed to reliably source. Orderinchaos 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The are several reliable sources in the article; I have just added two more, could you take another look? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group *is* a rather major urban exploration organisation, recognised (whether they love 'em or hate 'em) by urban explorers worldwide. While this article has been POV disrupted in the past, it *is* well referenced. Perhaps there *are* a couple of lame parts to it (no draining when raining, for example), but none of these really justify a deletion. They've been around since the mid 80's and in that time their members (and there's a lot of them) have discovered sites worldwide. Quite notable, with the references to back it up. SMC (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an advert and is not a notable subject. There is not a lot of content that can be added to this article, as the Clan prefer to keep most of their activities secret, so finding more refs would be quite difficult. And the history section about a group of guys discovering some guys name written in cement in a drain and then meeting the guys sister sound ridiculous. The most recent addition to the activities section should also come out as this reads a lot like an adventure tourism promo.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the idea of the sister etc. was to clarify that their "inspiration" was in fact not an urban explorer but rather a drain builder. SMC (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. There are more references in this article than there are on many that get kept in AfDs. They are all substantial. I have added two more sources; one is BBC coverage. Could you have a look at it again? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count on Adam changing his view. He's very much opposed to this group, evidenced through his talk page contributions. SMC (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this article would have attracted the nomination for deletion had it not been for all Adam's counter-productive edits. S.Nadir (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on the back of my mind for a while, after seeing other urban exploration/ghost-related groups go by the wayside. seicer | talk | contribs 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayside? the level of hot discussion here indicates very much otherwise. Perhaps you're a little jealous seicer? 119.11.7.53 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and several other editors have been trying to clean this article up prior to this AFD, even attempting to address some of the concerns here (ie. referencing), but these efforts were reverted by Adam. I see he's been indef blocked for harassing another user. Perhaps we'll have a proper chance now of improving this article. SMC (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable urban exploration group. I'm not even from Melbourne, and I know who they are and what they do. Adequately references, as far as I am concerned. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Very weak keep and cleanup I don't like urban exploration-cruft, but this organisation is the subject of a few in-depth stories in major Australian newspapers and TV news each year. If there was an Urban exploration in Australia article I'd support this material being merged into it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to have very little notability outside its immediate area. See WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources.". That seems to be very much the case here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They easily meet general notability guidelines and organization notability guidelines; I can't quite understand why others are thinking it doesn't. Subject is discussed in multiple, reliable, verifiable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not wild about that the Keep proponents include SPAs and editors under block for edit warring on this article. Nonetheless, enough of the sources check out and refer to articles about this group to pass notability standards. Ravenswing 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as above and reasonable pages hits for the article confirm that. SunCreator (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this organisation is "worthy of note". Most well known organization for an unconventional but well documented pastime.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable organisation, numerous references in place. At least some of the cleanup requested last time seems to have taken place. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapla (disambiguation)

Delete.No reason to have this. Per WP:D, "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions," not to mention it's a non-English fictional word... Tan | 39 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition? :) Kill the disambiguation and leave it with the article at the top of the list. PeterSymonds | talk 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no evidence that the Klingon word is notable, and dab pages aren't for dicdefs anyway. A redirect would serve no purpose, as nobody's likely to type (disambiguation) in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Klingon word for success (used as a farewell) is Qapla’, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, I created the page, and I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. (I have seen it written as Kapla, however...guess I'm not a big enough Trekkie to spell it in the "original Klingon." ;) Anyway, fair enough. Kill it off. - Ageekgal (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this page should have had the klingon word entry rm from the page as a non-article entry (or dictionary def, take your pick), then speedied as a dab page with only one valid entry. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be sure, we could (if this were Qapla) say Qapla, a word for success in the Klingon language, which would point the reader to encyclopedic content (the word is mentioned in the article). Right now that's a redirect and not a disambiguation page. Or if the Klingon Wikipedia were still active (and had an article) we could interwiki .... --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While only one person (the nominator) contributed to this debate, the BLP concerns were serious enough not to let this run another five days. Blueboy 96 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode

Article lacks references from major news sources. Instead, it carries references from a "South Asia Terrorism Portal" enthusiasts' group. The article is trying to paint this guy as a terrorist when it clearly has no hard facts, and no good references to make such a claim. If we have no good references that he blew up an airplane, then the guy is not notable. Such a claim should have multiple world renowned references. Googling the subject does not produce any Lester 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by User:Lester: At first glance, the article appears referenced. However, on closer inspection, the references are not supporting the claims. There seems to be 2 main claims:

Claim #1: He is the leader of terrorist group "International Sikh Youth Federation" (ISYF). This claim is not supported by the inline reference, and besides, it is not notable because this organization does not have its own Wiki article anyway.
Claim #2: He was involved in the bombing of an Air India plane. This appears to be the only possibly notable point about the man known as Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode. Were there arrests, charges, a court case or convictions? No. Then how can we say it? Where are the major news agencies supporting the claim?

If you Google him, or click my Google search link in my first paragraph (above), it returns 3 pages of websites. These consist of Wikipedia, Wikipedia derivatives (such as Answers.com), and a stack of blogs and minor sites. Wikipedia cannot say he blew up an Air India plane if the major news organizations are not going to make such a claim.Lester 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to where no man has gone before. There is no justifiable reason to keep an article whose subject only generates five Google hits. Blueboy 96 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Boldly Go

I am tempted to refuse stating a reason beyond this. Either way, this is not an encyclopedic article and never will be; so for the love of god let's get rid of it. Dorftrottel (troll) 05:06, April 8, 2008 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or redirect without deletion per the Five pillars as referenced and organized article concerning a topic consistent with a specialized encyclpedia on turn-based strategy games. Advertisement-like prose can be fixed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it can be improved given the total lack of reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} summa05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks legitimate. Everything can be improved upon somehow. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking legitimate" has nothing to do with whether it deserves an article in Wikipedia (and I fail to see how that link proves that it's "legitmate", whatever that may mean). According to its official website, it's "a free SF web game of over 100 players". BuddingJournalist 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that it's not a hoax. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you are not trying to argue here that the only thing it takes is the topic not being a complete hoax. There is no information on the notability of the subject matter, and no reliable sources to verify that prerequisite. As for redirecting it to Where no man has gone before see WP:RFD#DELETE#7.: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." So unless someone comes up with at least one single source to verify that "To Boldly Go" (with capitals!) has actually been used ever there is most certainly no "consensus to redirect": Policy mandates that it should be deleted. Please make sure to actually open and read all those very relevant links before inevitably repyling. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008

In this instance, because searches for the phrase do seem to be common enough and it is a legitimate search term and consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedia on phrases that a rediect to the other article would indeed be worthwhile and would allow us to keep public the contribution history of anyone who worked on it. If you check below, you'll see that "To Boldly Go" has served as the title of multiple articles and essays. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you still want to keep the article as is? Shouldn't you amend your !vote as "Redirect"? BuddingJournalist 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is notability established? RE:Le Grand Roi – The current article violates the five pillars: a dearth of references, original research, non-neutral tone. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." BuddingJournalist 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I have noticed when looking for sources is that perhaps the aricles itself could/should be drastically revised. For example, the phrase "To Boldly Go" is perhaps a notable expression and this article can be revised as a disambiguation or something on that expression or the current article's subject moved to a renamed article. Anyway, in terms of the title phrase itself having potential, perhaps see [16], [17], etc. As there are indeed specialized encyclopedias on notable expressions and phrases, perhaps that may be the route to go. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have an article on the phrase: Where no man has gone before. BuddingJournalist 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I see no reason why we could not redirect to that article, maybe have a merge mention there, and do so without deleting in order to keep editors' contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Where no man has gone before. Notability not established. BuddingJournalist 06:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Where no man has gone before or perhaps someone who has an interest in this subject can expand on the article with references and sourcing.Helixweb (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the article. It uses the phrase, but has no other connection to Star Trek. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been around forever in net years but has failed to achieve notability in that time. The phrase could be a redirect to Where no man has gone before, I suppose. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a redirect, which seems to be the consensus, then I don't see why we wouldn't just redirect without taking the extra step of deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if deleted this article doesn't go away (and it could always be userfied or transwikied someplace appropriate), and could be revived via WP:DRV at a later date. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already has enough sources to satisfy verifiability and I know where to find sources to demonstrate notability. I just need to wade through my toppling piles of print magazines. Wikipedia is not solely defined by what you can find on Google. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may muse, I recall that Jeremy Maiden published a magazine called He's Dead Jim back in the day. This then reminds me of the unsettled matter of Station Jim. Some days, it seems like everything is connected. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should vote to keep only after you have come up with sufficient sources. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008

Yes, that's the same Jeremy Maiden. As the Colonel undoubtedly knows, the magazine far predated the internet and thus is impossible to "verify", based on the definition of the concept being used here. A few articles by Mr. Maiden relating to variations on the core rules for Diplomacy are available on-line, including Silly Diplomacy 2 1/2, Diplomacy I (rn13), and Geophysical Diplomacy, but sadly nearly all the articles and other materials written/created by him have either never been online (and thus are not "verifiable" or "notable") or they have simply disappeared over the years as websites die and the content is lost. ASpafford (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is explicit policy that we encourage articles which are WP:IMPERFECT in order that they may be improved. I am an expert in this general topic and have some familiarity with the sources. These are not so easy to access as a Google search and so proper time should be allowed for this. Your impatient desire to delete this matter rather than work on it is contrary to our deepest principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very much yes. Until the point in time when you or someone else brings up an actual reliable source, you are in favour of deletion by default. Period. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:12, April 8, 2008

Again no. We have countless articles that have no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Examples include Direct sum and Old Yeller. This article has sources and it is trivial to verify what they say by using them, as I have done. Your nomination is mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT as its dismissive nature indicates. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. Dorftrottel (canvass) 12:44, April 8, 2008
Colonel, are you at all familiar with WP:RS? That aside, you shouldn't be citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the same response as committing WP:OTHERSTUFF. RGTraynor 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use policy for something as serious and destructive as deletion. See WP:PROVEIT which states, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable, and that editors are given a reasonable amount of time to find supporting sources. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion." So, does anyone here really doubt that this material is accurate? Is this haste really justifed? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This article has been around for two years now. That is quite ample time to come up with reliable sources, and there is no more "haste" involved here than in any AfD. If, as you claim, you are an expert as far as this particular game goes, then you are as qualified as anyone to produce such sources, and since the AfD has a few more days to run, you've time to do so. If you cannot, then I submit that suggests more that such sources do not in fact exist than they're just hiding somewhere. While you've mentioned several policies and guidelines, I'm sure you're aware that the fundamental Wikipedia policy that trumps everything else is WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis in the original) There, there's your policy, indeed the very one from which you quoted. RGTraynor 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:V, are you suggesting that every paragraph/section, or every sentence, should be footnoted even when nearly all the information presented is directly verifiable via the game's website? I'm asking this in all seriousness, because it seems that maybe one in a fifty wikipedia articles meets that kind of strict standard (usually involving lots of direct quotes and literary citations which aren't applicable here), and if the policy is that loosely enforced it hardly seems grounds for deleting this article. If you'd clarify, I'd gladly do some footnoting to address your concerns, but I suspect you'd simply change arguments and say it's still not notable and that I would have wasted my time. ASpafford (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one do not doubt its accuracy; I think the notability and secondary sourcing issues may have some legitimacy, but I think even in a worst case scenario we could make a reference in the other article on the phrase about how it's used in such manners as this game with what sources we do have here serving as sources in that article. Per the GFDL, we would then redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm willing to reconsider an article showing WP:N. I don't think the current sources really achieve that, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not a single reliable source exists telling us that the game actually exists (according to WP:V - i.e. our knowledge of its existence from self-published sources doesn't matter) - it has to go per Wikipedia's core policies. That an article about another topic under the same article title could be written/redirected seems quite irrelevant to me, and there would be no point keeping the edit history of a mostly unrelated topic. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Dead, Jim: Zero reliable sources, almost zero on G-hits. That doesn't merely fail WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB, that's lower than the belly of the earthworm rummaging beneath the sub-basement. RGTraynor 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. While it's certainly verifiable and an article on it would be encyclopedic per the five pillars, there isn't much in the way of secondary sources with which to expand the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you think a redirect based on the above discussion would be a reasonable compromise? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Redirect based on above. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for keeping an open-mind. Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not, as I explained to you above: The capitalised "To Boldly Go" is an implausible search term and as such should be deleted according to policy which you continue to ignore. Dorftrottel (criticise) 17:33, April 8, 2008
    - I am curious on Celarnor's opinion. I don't see a policy reason for deleting (rather than redirecting) an article that isn't a hoax and that has potential as a legitimate search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're not making any sense and it starts getting disruptive. Please stop the filibustering and move on. Learn and accept that uninhibited growth is basically never a good thing. Think e.g. sub-prime crisis and cancer... and it is harmful on Wikipedia as well. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:51, April 8, 2008
        There's no harm in asking Celarnor's opinion. You may not like inclusiveness, but it is consistent with encyclopedic traditions: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia And I actually do NOT want a significant number of articles kept (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran are some examples in which I do not believe anything can be merged or redirected; I even thought by agreeing with you in the Screambox one would be a nice peace offering as with the exchange with your IP). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To redirect where, just out of curiosity? RGTraynor 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps to Where no man has gone before. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*TECHNICAL ERROR - This AFD is not linked from the article. SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical error repaired. Not sure what went wrong though, appeared to be substed properly.. Weird. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there is no real evidence that this is important. But I am not aware of the significance of "PBeM Base International top 10 of 1999" --if that can be shown to be a major award, then it might be enough Are their other selections in WP? If they are, this should be also. If nobody has so far thought the others WP-worthy, then, given the strong game-orientation of WP, this probably isnt either. I'll defer to a specialist whobvknows about this. DGG (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the degree it counts, I've played PBMs and have been an RPG author and gamer for thirty years, and this is the first I've ever heard of "PBeM Base International." While it does exist (there are, after all, a whopping 23 Google hits for the term), that doesn't suggest it's particularly notable. RGTraynor 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Redirect~~ Keep ~~The term To_Boldly_Go is notable, but it is already covered in Where_no_man_has_gone_before. SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~ If WP:RS arrives keep the article but have an opening disambig to Where_no_man_has_gone_before. In fact I might add that. SunCreator (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now of the opinion that WP:N is reached. SunCreator (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient notability has been reached how exactly? What has changed? This edit of yours is the only edit to the article since I nominated it for deletion... Dorftrottel (bait) 16:09, April 10, 2008

Delete. Several policies failed, including WP:V and WP:N. Redirect is inappropriate because the current content is unrelated to the proposed redirection topic. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as the PBEM award can be referenced (which I acknowledge isn't there at the moment). That should yield an independent source with substantive content. Otherwise I anm content to wait, the article isn't hurting anyone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the site exists anymore. But in any case, I did some bit of research on this "PBeM Base International", and it seems to have just been a Geocities site that listed Play by email games and allowed visitors to vote for their favorites (Archive.org version). Thus, it doesn't seem like it would be a good independent reliable source, nor would I call that award particularly notable. BuddingJournalist 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article that meets our core policies and would not be out of place in an encyclopedia of strategy games. Catchpole (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which core policies would those be? RGTraynor 05:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are summarised as the Five Pillars. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Five Pillars. I'm interested to know which of these Catchpole believes this article meets and why. RGTraynor 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is verifiable, neutrally written and does not included original ideas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading the same article as you are, Catchpole? It does not cite verifiable, authoritative sources, and seems to contain original research in some places. It features an unencyclopedic tone. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirect to where no man has gone before. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of reliable independent sources treating this. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment What is the difference between a/changing this article to a redirect. and b/deleting this article, and then putting in a redirect for "From boldly go" to "Where no man has gone before"? In case a/, the text of the article on this apparently totally non-notable strategy game will still be there in the history, while in case b/, the text of this totally non-notable game will be removed. Which is the desired result? DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked, my recommendation is (b). We already have a dab page at To boldly go, containing links to two pages: Where no man has gone before and this article. I think this article should be deleted and the dab page, which will become useless in either case, turned into the redirect to Where no man has gone before, since the version without headline capitalization seems a much more likely search term. Deor (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any references that couldn't have been create by a couple of determined people in a few days. Even if it exists this is just a play-by-mail game using slightly newer technology. 100 players in a PBM is not notable. If a good reference to an award can be turned up I'll change my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". A redirect to where no man has gone before would be fine, but only after this article's history has been deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're willing to redirect, I don't see any advantage in deleting as well. as it's important to keep as much of editors' contribution history public as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary; sometimes it is advantageous to remove even references to the contribution history. It removes copyvio and other forbidden content; it prevents easy recreation of deleted content; and it prevents editors from using the historical versions for webhosting. It's the third case that concerns me here. The article currently present serves a promotional purpose; a historical version linked from the redirect's history could also do so; so we should delete it in order to purge those versions, then put the redirect in place. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seeing these edits would be incredibly useful should anyone who ever contributed to the artcile runs for adminship, as many who participate in RfAs are not admins and therefore cannot see deleted contribs. If an article is redirected per an AfD, efforts to recreate the deleted content are usually pretty easily squashed. The benefits seem to outweigh the negatives. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Only to you. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see no reason to suspect that others would not also be interested; after all, we have several arguing to keep, merge, or redirect in this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's fine that you don't see one, but many of us do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, then we don't have consensus yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What PS said, and I for one would really appreciate it if you could cut back on the overproduction of your point at least a bit. Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:19, April 10, 2008
        I would not have any further comments if no one responded to me; I think it would be rude to not reply to a comment made directly to one of my edits, i.e. it would appear as if I'm just ignoring that commenter, which I only do if I suspect the account is a sock. If I don't have such suspicions, I am willing to acknowledge tha editor. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Few people run for adminship without several thousand edits under their belts, and almost no one who doesn't succeeds at it. I'm quite sanguine with judging RfA candidates on the 99.97 percent of their edits that don't come from this article. RGTraynor 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It wouldn't hurt to see these edits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the redirect that won't happen: Please see and read this. The page at To boldly go will be redirected, most probably to Where no man has gone before. The redirect at To boldly go will automatically redirect the all-initial-cap "To Boldly Go". The redirect is therefore not needed and in fact advised against: "Note: Related redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations. They are not needed, for example, for proper names which are all initial caps." (original emphasis!) Best regards, Dorftrottel (talk) 02:10, April 10, 2008
- A good deal of editors believe that a redirect would be worthwhile, though, and probably harmless if nothing else. I understand what you mean by the link above, i.e. the lower case redirect also redirect here and appreciate the effort to clarify by providing the link, but I still think having the edit histories remain public is a benefit and that way if anyone is really interested in this article's contents they can at least look at an old version of it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is unnecessary and officially advised against. I understand that you have several issues with existing policies and guidelines, but those issues are yours. Dorftrottel (criticise) 02:34, April 10, 2008
    - I suppose it depends on the outcome. Some are arguing to merge above and if there's any specific reference made (even if it's a minor merge) to this material in the proposed redirect article, then a redirect from the caps article would make sense per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So far, nothing —not one single bit— in the "article" is attributed to a reliable secondary source. Therefore, there is nothing to merge. Therefore... you refuse to get the point whatever anyone says. Dorftrottel (complain) 08:24, April 10, 2008
        Sometimes primary sources are more reliable than independent sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Few would dispute that ... but that is not Wikipedia's policy. RGTraynor 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the creator of this article, so naturally my vote is biased, and I'd gladly attempt any improvements that would make the article viable in the eyes of those voting for deletion. I am aware of the notablility concern, but have been caught in a catch-22 -- the "reputable" on-line citations that make TBG "notable" under the interpretation of wikipedia guidelines simply no longer exist. When TBG was new in late '90's and free games of its type and quality were unusual, it was easy to find reputable articles/reviews/sources on-line about it that would be considered notable within the context of the free-to-play turn-based strategy gaming community. Obviously, notability has to be viewed in that context, or the entire concept is meaningless. But of course that was a decade ago. TBG stopped being new, and combined with the drop-off in turn-based gaming, people stopped writing about it much (or most other games of it's type that weren't for-profit or income-generating to some degree), and the old articles/reviews gradually went away. That doesn't mean TBG stopped being notable, it just means that verification under wikipedia standards becomes far more difficult. Personal knowledge doesn't count here, but TBG is unquestionably a notable game within it's niche (or at least was -- it is admittedly long in the tooth and less popular than it was say six or more years ago; however even a once notable game would still be worthy of a wikipedia article, especially a still-active one). So how can that be established to the satisfaction of those in favor of deletion? ASpafford (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If reputable sources existed back in the late 90s online, you should still be able to find the http://www.archive.org versions. What specific sources covered the game back in the day? BuddingJournalist 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've attempted to use that site, but I always get timed out. The PBeM Base International site, review and award was cached somewhere many years ago but is gone now. Someone above called its notablility into question above, although the link they provided doesn't seem to work. Regarding non-online sources, Flagship Magazine referenced TBG back in the day (not sure if there was ever a full review), but I have no idea what issues, and the few copies that are accessable online aren't helpful. I'll try to remember the names of other sources, but after all these years those are the two that come to mind. ASpafford (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, it's a shame archive.org can't get better servers. Anyway, the PBeM Base site is working for me at the moment: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117015748/http://webxxx.schlund.de/pbembase/pbem.htm. Could you explain what makes the award or the organization notable? From my limited research on Google, it seemed to just be a site where visitors could click to vote on their favorite games (hence the "award" cited in the article?). Its archived page also seems to indicate it would not be considered a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia (note the "add/edit a game", which implies user-generated content). Furthermore, WP:N notes that a subject should receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means, then, that a brief reference in a magazine is probably not enough to establish notability, as I certainly wouldn't call it "significant". Indeed, I've been mentioned in multiple newspapers that are considered reliable sources, and I'm probably "notable" in my niche of a community, but that doesn't mean I'm notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. BuddingJournalist 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see it now, thanks. There were a lot of "independent" reviews of games too -- as I recall the site was quite serious about covering a broad range of PBEM games in an evenhanded way (although there was a strong European bent; I think they were based in Germany), while encouraging players to list new games. The awards were issued based not just on visitor/player voting, but also on reviews by PBeM Base International staff (probably volunteers) and comments/feedback on those reviews, but that undoubtedly leaves room for fan manipulation. Just like All-Star game voting in some sports. Anyway, I know there were other PBEM news and information sites/sources that covered/referenced TBG, but my memory and search skills (or on-line archiving) have failed me. And it seems likely that new reasons would be found to reject them anyway based on slippery notions of notability and significance that seem mostly to do with mass-popularity and profit -- e.g., Hollywood films that show on 1,000 screens, vs small-budget independent films showing at a little festival or two. But I do appreciate your polite consideration of my posts. ASpafford (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the above. WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:N violations make this anathema to a anything with even vaguely encyclopedic aspirations. Eusebeus (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that the standards are being applied in such a way that very few free or open-source games (especially older ones) are deemed worthy even when they are notable within their genre/niche. I assume all of these -- [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] (similar to the TBG page; seems like a nice article), [27], [28], [29], [30] (is the review "reputable"?), [31], [32], [33] (and many others) should be deleted as well? ASpafford (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If, as you say, they are notable, then there should exist reliable third-party sources that can back up the claim of notability. BuddingJournalist 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, most of these games, however beloved of their players, have a tiny base and very little, if any, notability even within the gaming community, let alone the wider world. Beyond that, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability are fairly staunch. If no reliable sources exist, then claims to notability are threadbare at best. RGTraynor 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they should not be deleted, only improved, as we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ? I do not understand your reasoning. How does "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers" apply to those articles exactly? That does not have any bearing on whether or not they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion (WP:V, WP:N, etc.). What if I create an article about myself? Can I argue that because "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers", it should not be deleted? BuddingJournalist 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose it depends where you are a journalist for; a journalist can be worthy of inclusion and I'm sure we have articles on journalists of varying degrees of notability (not every person is Napoleon or Caesar, but you don't have to be one of the most notable figures of history to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In a sense, by having a userpage, you do have something like an article (I know that's a slight stretch, but the userpage takes up the same amount of disk space). Anyway, though, these articles concern games (not people) that are notable to more than just a regular person's family, friends, and acquaintances. Plus, we do have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is getting kind of off-topic of the main issue (To Boldly Go). Suffice it to say, you have not convinced me that these games are notable (as defined by Wikipedia; although from skimming some of the articles, it looks like some of them may well be, but not all); all you've done is stated that they are. Anyway, back to "To Boldly Go", could you please describe why exactly your "Strong keep" vote is in sync with WP:V and WP:N? I fail to see how the article demonstrates the notability ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable") of the game. (p.s. I'm not exactly a journalist per se ;), and I can assure you, I am not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.) Almost any game is bound to have some sort of niche audience (even if it's just the coder's friends); that doesn't mean that they all deserve an article in Wikipedia. I could code a game, release it to my friends/larger community, perhaps even garner >100 users and brief mentions online—maybe even in a local paper. But that hardly fits the criteria of WP:N, and I don't see much of a difference between that hypothetical and "To Boldly Go". BuddingJournalist 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I didn't say they were all notable, although some of them appear to be within the context of their own niche/genre (with others it's impossible to tell because they're basically stubs of arguably far less value than this article). However they are all pretty clearly articles that fail the broad WP:V and WP:N standards being applied here. As for TBG specifically, I agree the difficulty here is meeting the high notablility standard. And I'm not arguing that all games deserve wikipedia articles. However, your hypothetical seems to me right around the threshold of what should be sufficient in the internet age where such games (like TBG) often have a global player base, even though the total numbers are quite modest. Otherwise, the game articles in wikipedia will be little more than the shills of for-profit games that effectively buy "notability" (a well-known practice of most for-profit games is to mail free software to "journalists", provide free access and percs, etc...). I realize that this has moved into a broader discussion, and I do not really expect to "save" this article based on the majority of responses. I simply find it disappointing that (with some fairly limited exceptions) games must be either "massive" or have a large enough marketing budget. ASpafford (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the dab page to "where no man has gone before". Nothing said about this 'award' has convinved me it's any more important than a recommendation from Joe Schmoe's personal blog. That leaves a google search which isn't turning up anything and no presentation of anything resembling a reliable (let alone in-depth) source. Someone another 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Mullane

Subject is not notable; article eludes speedy with only the most tenuous assertion of notability. Creator removed prod without showing notability. Dethme0w (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One role does not equate to notability. Note: Article creator has removed AfD template Erechtheus (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Twice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One role doesn't assert notability in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "briefly featur[ing]" in one role as a child actor isn't sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability (and banal to boot). -Sticks66 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO per [34]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see wiki mirrors, I don't see dead people, evidence of notability or even confirmation that he exists. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. See the initial article as it was created[35]. Blatant nonsense or joke page.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ang

Why do kids post things like this about themselves? Basically just a run-down of his school record. Not notable as a musician or as a writer. Qworty (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7- Per nomination above. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Despite the one "delete" !vote, I think that the consensus is by far obvious enough for this to be closed per WP:SNOW, especially given that I have withdrawn and that the article has been improved significantly. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xlibris

AfDs for this article:

~~No assertation of notability, only source is trivial. Seems to be a vanity press. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn Very good WP:HEY work on this article, looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still surprised that no one has ever bothered to categorize this page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Qworty apparently removed the highly appropriate category of "book publishing companies". (I reinserted it with "of the US".) I don't understand. It publishes books. What else is it? --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a pretty notable vanity press. See discussions here, here, and probably elsewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a login screen, and the second is a one paragraph mention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I was able to access the first article for free a minute ago; it was the first thing listed here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Piers Anthony plugging it, and there's plenty more information here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced yet, as most of those sources don't seem to be very in depth. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this, this, this, etc... Articles have survived AFD with far less. Zagalejo^^^ 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was trying to WP:HEY the article using these sources, but Wikipedia (especially article space) has suddenly become slower than a teenager asked to take out the garbage. Hopefully someone can pick up where I left off. Good night. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source that needed a login can be found in teh google cache. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a FREE REGISTRATION. I don't know why anyone interested in sourcing articles would eschew a NYT login. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. There are sources, but they mostly seem to be trivial. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. They are just a vanity press, not a major legitimate press like, say, HarperCollins. Xlibris will print books for anyone who's willing to open a checkbook and pay. That's not how legitimate, notable authors operate, and that's not how legitimate, notable publishers operate. The average Xlibris title sells only a few copies, most of them to the authors themselves, who then distribute them to friends or family. No real, notable author will order books printed from Xlibris; real, notable authors get advances from legitimate book publishers--they don't have to pay vanity presses! This is why Xlibris has NO notable authors. If they have no notable authors, then they are not a notable publisher. If they are not a notable publisher, we must delete. Qworty (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sill, Xlibiris has been discussed in multiple books and newspaper articles, which is the most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Wikipedia notability standards. Your argument isn't grounded in any policies or guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with you about his argument not being grounded in policy. Take a look at WP:Notability and you'll see that this is written : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Key words here are significant, reliable, and presumed.Helixweb (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited, and I think that applies to authors and publishers as well. For example, PublishAmerica certainly hasn't any notable authors.Kate (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Spammy and self-bio.Helixweb (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-bio? Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Biography:

Main Entry: bi·og·ra·phy

Pronunciation: \bī-ˈä-grə-fē also bē-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural bi·og·ra·phies

Etymology: Late Greek biographia, from Greek bi- + -graphia -graphy

Date: 1683

~~1 : a usually written history of a person's life 2 : biographical writings as a whole 3 : an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)~~

In other words, the article was written by someone within the company to promote their own interests. Take a look at the rather limited contributions of the original author of the article ^[1] - four spam entries and one sandbox test - and I think that says everything that needs to be said about this article. Looks better, worth keeping. Helixweb (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources for expansion are voluminous, ranging from authors' publishing guides to technical discussions on using their software. Apparently what we have is an article with a long copyvio removed and left as a stub, only receiving nag tags since, but it isn't even in a proper category for people to find and fix it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press itself seems notable, even if most of the books they publish are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there are some scarce sources avalable, so it's not completely non-notable, which per WP:CORP should be enough - but it's also just one small publisher among many. And most material available about it seems to be promotional/press-releases, and I suspect if kept this simply will remain an ad - so also no harm done if it's deleted. --Minimaki (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given the sheer number of times I see it mentioned in author publishing guides, there's going to be heaps of references. Yes, it's a vanity press and the article needs to clearly state that, but it's one of the two most prominant vanity presses in the States (Publish America being the other, and sleezer, one). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Zalagejo's sources are convincing enough. WP:RS requires sources to be about the subject, not for them to discuss the subject for some (undefined) amount of column-inches. I'm also unsure where in Wikipedia guideline or policy being a vanity press is a deletion ground, and wouldn't mind a link to it. RGTraynor 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been completely rewritten from reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good job finding some additional sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice WP:HEY, would prefer {{notability}} was used before Afd raised, such things could save us all some time. SunCreator (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason why major vanity publishers should not have an entry, where independent sources exist, as long as their nature is made 100% clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Writersworld

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10 as entirely negative page about living people with no neutral version.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto mafia

Completely unsourced, and accuses living people of criminal activity. Clear violation of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Contested prod, removed by author without explanation, as usual. eaolson (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Article is tagged for CSD G10. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced attack page. --Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Notability exists. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bovis Lend Lease

Non-notable company, no claim of notability, and yet my speedy tag was removed. The maintenance tag has been on it for a week. Corvus cornix_talk 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is huge, and the article already had two good references. I added two more. --Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL Nick Connolly (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added, seems to be fairly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Infobox says it all. But if not Googles (although article traffic is surprisingly low)-- BpEps - t@lk 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps a Speedy Keep Large multi-national company that is clearly notable. AUD12 billion in revenue should be sufficient to estabilsh notability. The deletion process is not a substitute for cleanup. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and of course there is also this fairly notable event -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not forced cleanup; subject is clearly notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AUD12 billion in revenue with a reference to substantiate the claim should be sufficient to establish notability.--Matilda ^talk 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Non-admin closure. BoL (Talk) 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High 5's All Round

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/High 5's All Round

Fails WP:MUSIC. No releases, tours or awards listed. No significant third party coverage. Nv8200p talk 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. As nom says no releases/tours/awards/etc. Not even a claim of notability. Tagged as a speedy Bfigura ^(talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cute name though. -Drdisque (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 I endorse the tag already on the article. Absolutely no notability per WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matrix online (story)

A chapter-by-chapter plot summary of the online game The Matrix Online. While the game itself seems to be notable, this seems to be a overly long summary that falls under Wikipedia is a not an archive of plot summaries. I'd suggest a merge to a plot sub-section of The Matrix Online, but compressing this article to an acceptable length would essentially amount starting from scratch. Also, prod declined by author. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons listed above Bfigura ^(talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No merge is necessary, this is just overwrought crufty junk. JuJube (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for including plot synopses, even somewhat detailed ones, but not as the sole topic of an article, at least with regards to a product that is not considered classic literature. On the off chance this is kept, the article needs to be renamed with correct capitalization. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fancrufty personal essay. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Reagrds, Eusebeus (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:ATA is an essay we are free to ignore; WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Therefore even using "per nom" may be valid as the person above may have said it just as you might have, and you want to add your weight to the consensus, so to speak.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" just seems like a vote. In a discussion, participants should offer something new. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient.
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Constant Outsider

Delete. Yet-unreleased book of unclear notability. "The Constant Outsider" Cirignano google search results only in this Wikipedia article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author is a red link and book hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I would also note that Xlibris is a vanity press, so it's unlikeley this book will receive much attention even once it is published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re-create when and if the book makes the big time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion that this org. is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Rescue

non-notable small EMS service with only 4 ambulances. Completely fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG Drdisque (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11/CSD A7 BoL (Talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, so tagged. Doesn't meet any kind of notability criteria whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidding Mourning EP

Band is CSD as non-notable, so I'm putting this for AFD. asenine ^t/_c 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet-unreleased EP of non-notable band. ... discospinster _talk 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Band isn't notable and album hasn't been released; therefore, this isn't in any way notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Agree with Hammer. Crystal ball coverage of an album by a non-notable band. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I nominated the band article for deletion and it's gone; I suspect a COI issue here as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most definitely; with the band article gone, that article is the account's only edit. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 'nuff said. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect --JForget 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Delgado (Without a Trace)

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable outside of main article. asenine ^t/_c 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability within series. I don't know how closely this matches the version that got deleted a month ago, so I wouldn't quite say db-repost. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Without a Trace article or merge into a list of characters without deleting per the GFDL so as to keep editors' contribution history public. Legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more or less a recreation of material deleted only a few days ago. If the deletion was controversial, then a deletion review can always be launched. 23skidoo (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a list of characters in Without a Trace if one exists, create if it doesn't. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Without_a_Trace#Regular_cast, along with all the other character articles. If the section gets too big, spin out a single article on the characters.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN both outside and inside series. —97198 talk 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. —Travis ^talk 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hall

~~Highly doubtful notability (does not qualify for speedy deletion, as the article asserts notability — scetoaux (T|C) 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

This AFD was nominated in error. — scetoaux (T|C) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A1. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garradors

Was nominated for deletion by User:Asenine but Twinkle never finished the nomination. The page's creator vandalized the unfinished AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A1. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Sisters

Non-notable game boss. asenine ^t/_c 01:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (A7, no assertion of notability) Nonadmin close Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OVerus

I get only four hits. asenine ^t/_c 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is non-notable.

asenine ^t/_c 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reason for deletion is unclear. Where does "I get only four hits" fall in the Wikipedia "reasons for deletion" guidelines?

OVerus ~ The Christian Business Emblem is the trademark of a registered United States business, and an emerging Christian presence in both national and international markets. Forthwith, an immediate AfD nomination is a bit extreme.
Wikiquette - WP editors must have courtesy for other productive editors and give them more than 30 seconds after creating an article before attempting to delete one of their newest articles; thanks. Kmiklas (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keith Miklas" is the registered owner of overus.org[36] Seems like a reasonably clear case of spam to me. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an advertisement for a non-notable business. Boldly marked as a speedy. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability. OVerus "The Christian Business Emblem" gets 7 google results. Trademark search does not show any such registration. The company's own web page shows that precisely one product uses the mark. ... discospinster _talk 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 -Drdisque (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; no claim of notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Corvus cornix_talk 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HangOn: Folks it's after midnight and I'm really tired I'll be back in the morning. Plz hang I'm only about 20% complete (maybe) I haven't even uploaded my images or references yet. "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete."

Kmiklas (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment; your problem is not incompleteness. It's that it appears actively non-notable; a trademark that hasn't been formally registered, for a program invented this year that has one product lined up that's not itself notable. You don't need images; you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this. I'd speedy it; if you had that, you'd have shown us. If it's not speeded, I suggest you skip the images and go straight to showing us why this notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ref. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmiklas (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It appears to be blatant spam for sure, but it has only been up for a couple of hours. Give it 48 hours and tag it again. If it weren't so new, I'd support the speedy delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an article is spam, then it does not deserve 48 hours, or 24 hours. There is no assertion of notability. No evidence of any third party coverage. The article is written like a press release or an advert. This is a PR campaign masquerading as an article. No, it doesn't deserve any extra time. It's not tagged speedy anyway, so why the "speedy keep" endorsement? The nomination isn't in violation of standard procedures. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm with Jeremy; nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse. No bloody kidding it lacks an assertion of notability, or doesn't read like the way an article should; the author hasn't had the time yet to do it up properly. Honestly, are there prizes being awarded by the Wikimedia Foundation for being the one to AfD the most articles in a given week? RGTraynor 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles are deleted all the time within moments of their creation. This is not the OU symbol we are talking about here. Secondly, you have not actually given a reason for keeping the article other than "it was just posted" — and you have done so in a quite uncivil manner. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And obviously blatant attack articles or obscenity-riddled nonsense rightfully should be deleted as soon as possible. Which of these is this? RGTraynor 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Reply It wasn't tagged speedy when I got here, and it still reads like spam 14 hours later. It's in AfD now, which is supposed to run for five days. That's plenty of time. So what's the problem? DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated it. No one will compel you to agree with me, but "nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse" seems clear enough to me. RGTraynor 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to that is, "then what's the use of the New Page Patrol?" but I'll save that debate for another time. It's lunchtime on the US East Coast, and it still looks like PR spam to me. The most glaring example is the entire "Benefits" section. Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the New Page Patrol is to vette new articles, of course, and take appropriate action. I don't believe appropriate action encompasses filing for AfD within moments of creation, period, ever, and if you want more evidence as to the limitations of the approach, take a look at this Afd of the nom's, also made today: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tan_Crone. There's nothing about the NPP preventing them from giving new articles a couple days before doing so. Of course, that's a debate more properly made elsewhere. RGTraynor 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one's a little more obvious. If I'd found this article in the condition it was in (and still is many hours later), I may not have instantly speedied, but I would still look at it as spam. One minute later, twelve hours later, it's still as spammy then as it is now. Spam is spam. It doesn't deserve to live. Author has had adequate time to show that it is not. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discospinster. And furthermore endorse nominator's filing of this AfD. WP:BITE means we explain nicely to newbies what they are doing wrong and then correct their errors as we find them, instead of screaming acronyms and banning them. It does NOT mean that we give self-promoters free reign for N days/hours/seconds while they try avoid learning that yes, conflict of interest isn't good and yes, encyclopedias aren't for advertising. cab (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On Boldly marked - Please allow time for full presentation of accomplishments. "Alternatives to deletion" are in progress; specifically, editing and addition of references. The OVerus mark is the first "Kosher for Christians" mark and deserves an opportunity. 24.187.99.138 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.187.99.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Kosher is Jewish dietary law. This is not at all like that. There is no similar doctrine in most Christian faiths. Gain the opportunity elsewhere. Wikipedia is for after you've become notable. It's not the place to try to gain notability. DarkAudit (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, a great number of businesses already use the Ichthys fish symbol to identify themselves as Christian businesses. This company is simply trying to capitalize on that by charging a fee for their own symbol. —Travis ^talk 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After several searches, both web and news sources, and perusing the organization’s website, I can see no way that this article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. If there are independent, verifiable, reliable sources out there, I can’t find them. —Travis ^talk 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On Boldly marked - Work continues on this entry. The OVerus Organization awaits advice from its patent and trademark attorney. Legal permission for several strong references are in progress. Edits are pending. Kmiklas (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would that be necessary? Any direct documentation would have to be licensed under the GFDL, and links to references need to be third party. Self-published references are frowned upon per sourcing guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with a minimal article, it seems clear that this project is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Thank you all for your input, it has been very helpful in the editing process. As the world's first Christian business emblem and certification process, OVerus is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. The four tags currently assigned to the page are advertisement, conflict of interest, notability, and unreferenced. The article will be edited within seventy-two hours to address these four assertions individually.
- Current Issues:
  - I. Advertisement: (WIP)
    - a. Partial Update: Kmiklas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - II. Conflict of Interest: (edit pending)
  - III Notability: (edit pending)
  - IV. Unreferenced: (edit pending)
- Relevant Wikipedia Guidelines:
  - Editing, "Alternatives to Deletion: Editing: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion)
  - Good Articles, "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion)
  - Five Day Minimum,"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than five days" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview)

Kmiklas (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had better move faster than that. It's been two days already, and there is still no assertion of notability in the article, much less any sign of reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage, or even any coverage whatsoever. Mere existence is not enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Your claim of having to contact your lawyers before work could continue on the article is dubious at best. There is no reason that this would be necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None whatsoever, This isn't a matter of trade or service marking. It's a matter of reliable sources, and either they exist or they do not. Whether this outfit's been written up in a magazine or a newspaper has nothing to do with attorneys, and proper sourcing takes much less fuss than racking up billable hours. RGTraynor 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Boldly marked - Edit 1 against "Advertising" claim is in progress. A partial edit has been posted to show good faith. "I. Advertisement" above has also been updated to reflect this change. Kmiklas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not true progress. You have still not answered the core question: "is it notable?" You have yet to show us that it is, or that anyone else independent of you thinks that it is. You also have not answered another key question. Why do you deem it necessary to consult with your attorneys regarding the content of this article? DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boldly marked - Please reference the following sites regarding notability for OVerus:

1. Rachel's Vineyard: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/support/support.htm
2. Adopt Need: http://www.adoptneed.com/
Kmiklas (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I really strongly urge you to review WP:RS for an understanding of what Wikipedia considers valid sources. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." RGTraynor 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retagged A7 Speedy Author has refused to answer the questions presented to him when given more than adequate time to do so. Still no assertion of notability at all, which is grounds for an A7 CSD. Author has refused to explain why he saw the need to consult with attorneys before editing the article. That defies explanation, and makes the assumption of good faith difficult to maintain. DarkAudit (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions. In closing this discussion, please clarify a few points:

1. For the record, the trademark attorney was consulted based on this comment by Prosfilaes, "for a trademark that hasn't been formally registered." Registration is in progress and we sought to provide specific information in the article.
2. Why was the article deleted so fast when according to Wikipedia policy articles receive a minimum of five days, and editing was clearly in progress?
3. Am I correct in understanding that the two referenced sites did not meet notability guidelines per WP:RS
4. Most importantly, what needs to be accomplished before OVerus can be included in Wikipedia? Prosfilaes stated, "you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this." Is that the bottom line? Media attention?
5. Is there a Wikipedia forum to have articles evaluated before they are posted?
Kmiklas (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged it, but I'm not the one who pulled the trigger. The closing admin should come by to explain why they concurred with the tag. Media attention is definitely key to establishing notability, but my concern was that the article didn't even assert notability. It only has to go a little bit past "Hey, it's notable!" to avert a speedy deletion. A claim will get you that past that hurdle, but once a claim is made, you need to back it up with proper sourcing. DarkAudit (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps this can be closed, and remaining questions can be discussed on the authors talk page? (Given that the deletion has occured?) I'm trying to answer his questions there now. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple more things:

6. Where can I obtain copies of my articles? I posted two, one for "OVerus" and another for "The OVerus Organization."
7. Everyone's comments were very helpful. I've actually heard a similar message from newspapers that I've contacted. They've told me that "there's not a story yet." This effort has given me a very clear direction. Thank you for your patience this was my first try at an article.
Kmiklas (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to your talk page to keep it all in one place. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handcannon

Non-notable game weapon. Merge into main article, perhaps? asenine ^t/_c 01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hand cannon —Travis ^talk 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is essentially already included in Hand cannon so, per WP:BOLD, duly redirected. —Travis ^talk 02:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Alexf (talk · contribs) (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Torres

AfDs for this article:

Assertions of notability null, as the articles appear to not exist (as far as I can see). Also, myspace friends does not make someone notable. asenine ^t/_c 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly no evidence of notability (the opening sentence generally gives it away). PeterSymonds | talk 05:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK's Treetop Temple

A board from the Mario Party series does not deserve its own article. I'm a fan of the series, but I still think this board does not deserve its own article. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to be notable here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure note: I added the AFD notice to this article; it was missing. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. Powers ^T 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most notability guidelines require coverage to be dedicated to the topic of the article, and this sort of article is why: It's possible that more than one magazine might have covered the board within articles on the game, but no-one in their right mind would publish an entire article about just this board. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the five days since this debate opened, no attempt was made to improve the article. As written, it failed WP:MUSIC by a city mile. Blueboy 96 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil J & Boi Payton

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lil J & Boi Payton

I don't see any assertion compatible with WP:BAND. asenine ^t/_c 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nomination. I see no signs of any notability. TheMile (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Macy (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep was nominated two minutes after creation; give it time to be developed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom seems to be in some manner of race, and has nominated a slew of articles for AfD moments after creation, well before the editors involved have had much chance to develop them. RGTraynor 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOWBALL / premature nomination. Non-admin close Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Crone

Does not seem notable via WP:BIO/WP:BAND. asenine ^t/_c 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has released many albums and meets our notability requirements. Further, WP editors must have courtesy for other productive editors and give them more than 30 seconds after creating an article before attempting to delete one of their newest articles; thanks. Badagnani (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does indeed have multiple albums, but they're all self released it seems. He doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a "she" (it seems you didn't even read up enough on this individual to find out her gender?), and they're all on major classical labels--CBS, Deutsche Grammophon, Etcetera (a Dutch independent classical label), Unicorn, Thorofon, etc., except for the most recent release. It seems you didn't look up these labels either, just guessed (hoped?) they were released under her own label (they weren't). You can't have it both ways; the musician either meets our notability guidelines (she does, with over a dozen prominent recordings, on major classical labels, recorded with major classical vocal artists) or she doesn't (she does). Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're linking to the wrong CBS records. The album she released through CBS came out in 1980 through the original Columbia Records and not the CBS records revived in 2006. So that means two albums released through a major label (Columbia & DG) and several more through independent labels. --Bardin (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, my bad -- didn't realize the notability of the labels. Meets critierion #5 of WP:MUSIC with ease. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it that even when I do think things through, I still make so many *(@#$! mistakes? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly Obvious Keep - Notable enough per criteria no. 5 for notability of a band or performer: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Etcetera is a fairly well-known independent classical label that was established in the 1980s. They have released albums featuring many notable artists including the Arditti Quartet, Edo de Waart, Bernard Haitink, the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, the London Sinfonietta and numerous others. If you do not know any of these names that I have just mentioned, then you're obviously not familiar with classical music. Clearly, Etcetera qualifies as an important indpendent label despite the absence of an article on wikipedia. I have never heard of this Tan Crone before now but she has evidently released many albums on this important independent label. Therefore, she is notable enough to merit an article on wikipedia per the guidelines. --Bardin (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bardin. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to Asenine's assertion, Crone satisfies (at least) WP:MUS criteria 5 and 8. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As are many up for AfD, this was nominated three minutes after article creation. Give it time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom seems to be in some manner of race, and has nominated a slew of articles for AfD moments after creation, well before the editors involved have had much chance to develop them. The obvious notability of this particular subject demonstrates the flaws in being in far too much of a rush to reload the New Articles page in time for the next AfD to actually bother to research claims or notability before nominating. RGTraynor 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not familiar with the artist, but the article indicates that she has performed and recorded on respected labels as an accompanist for respected musicians. She certainly seems no less notable than other classical artists not in the "household name" category who have articles in Wikipedia, including some about whom I've written myself; to my way of thinking, at least in the world of classical music, "notable" and "superstar" are not synonymous. Drhoehl (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC handily, and the edit history makes it clear this would have been patently obvious if the nominator had waited even a couple hours after article creation instead of 3 minutes before nominating. If you have a notability concern with a new article, tag it with {{notability}} and if it isn't addressed in a reasonable amount of time, then nominate it. AfD is clogged up enough, without adding hastily what need not have. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, passes WP:MUSIC given recent edits. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio of http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/white-rhinoceros.html . -- Longhair\^talk 05:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino facts

Nothing that can't be found at the Rhino article. asenine ^t/_c 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Everything in that article can easily be found at the Rhinoceros article. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheMile (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to existing rhinoceros article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting a hoax similar to Chuck Norris facts, but this is simply redundant and non-encyclopedic. -Drdisque (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and nonencyclopedic Bfigura ^(talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For once, I'm okay with the fast nomination, as this is a copyvio: [37] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queeny Love

Appears to be a trimmed copyvio from http://www.officialpornstar.com/2007/09/queeny-love.html (particularly the third WP paragraph) and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1481713/ (the filmography). When looking at the page history, some of the copyrighted text was removed. User deleted my CSD tag without adding hangon. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. BoL (Talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete clearly meant as promotion and non-encyclopedic. Since porn has different notability guidelines, I won't vouch for or against its ability to meet them. -Drdisque (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signamercial

Neologism. Admittedly, invented by (new) user User:Michael randrup (see [38]), who is the sole editor of this article (apart from somebody placing tags). Google returns a cool total of 0 (zero) hits on "signamercial" or any variant spellings of same (apparently, it hasn't yet picked this article). Needless to say, no sources absolutely. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NEO. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism Bfigura ^(talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admitted to be WP:MADEUP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The author invented the word, and therefore it's nonsense (G1). Proof of this is a google search, which returns only the Wikipedia article PeterSymonds | talk 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That doesn't mean it's patent nonsense per our speedy deletion criteria. In any case the concept treated in this article (beyond the obvious protologism) is something like 'Email Signature Marketing'. The current is just a personal essay, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. Obviously if it was a notable word, there would be conflict of interest, but it may warrant an article. However, it's not; it's a nonsense page because the word doesn't exist at all. PeterSymonds | talk 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you misunderstand Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. In any case we don't write articles on words but on topics. And while the article's creator has done his share to cloud it, all commenters above seem to disregard Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms and that the topic of this article is "structured advertising/marketing used by organizations in outgoing emails - typically below the sender's signature." I could just move it to e.g. Email signature marketing and edit the neologism away, if the draft was worth it, had some sources and I was interested, but I just came here because of the speedy tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos, my mistake. I was thinking that it must be nonsense because it was completely made up. Sorry for the trouble. PeterSymonds | talk 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. The title and word are made up and our notion of nonsense is more narrow than the common one. Now that I look, there are actually quite some hits on the topic. [39]. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1349 Woking Squadron

Procedural nomination. Expired PROD which was nominated with "This article is unsourced, seems to have little or no notability which i have specific understanding of given i am a member of the corps, contains information which is highly inaccurate, and seems to be mainly about advertising." This is borderline, and so I bring it here. I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this subgroup. JJL (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself does have some references, although they should be in-line and the article probably should be divided into sections to be less essay-like, but it does seem legitimately notable and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on military topics. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking at the 22 results, 3 are to wikipedia, 3 are to pages completely unrelated, 2 links are for a fund raising website which only has the squadron listed in a drop down menu and one link to another fundraising website which again is just from a list and one link is to a bebo account. That leaves 12 links which are directly related to the squadron. 3 are from the squadrons own website, 3 are simply advertisements, 1 is from a list of squadrons on the ATC website, and 2 are from similar lists from squadron websites, one is from a gliding squadron about a gilding allocation the squadron has and the last 2 are from a newsletter only at wing level. to me that doesnt seem to assert notability. A similar search on google does not provide any better sources. Seddon69 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Air Training Corps is a Youth organisation like the Scouts or the Boys Brigade. A single squadron is no more likely to be notable than a single Scout Troop or Boys Brigade Company. This has a few points, like the link trainer, but I still do not think it is notable enough. --Bduke (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a member of this organisation this article contain highy inaccurate statements like: "The squadron also has its own tube shooting range. The rarity of having such a range means that Cadet units of all types come from across the area to use it." The information regading the link trainer can be easily put into the article regarding it. Besides that this article asserts no other information that shows notability. Seddon69 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sub-organization. MrPrada (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." Not seeing sources that establish individual notability of this squadron. Deor (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frederick Wellesley

Completing unfinished nom for Cmprince (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, relatives of notable people are not of themselves notable. Cmprince (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly nn. JJL (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is not notable now, but may well be eventually through wealth and political involvement. --Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the crystal ball is in the shop waiting for repairs. Delete on that basis, also fails WP:V, WP:BIO. RGTraynor 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He's third in line to the title of Duke of Wellington and about 400th in the line of succession to the British throne. I'd say it's a keeper if he had inherited the Dukedom, but until then... --Canley (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone whose general area is royalty and nobility, I don't see the need to create an article for every individual in the peerage, which seems to be quite a trend. Though life peers are generally notable, younger children of hereditary peers rarely are. PeterSymonds | talk 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's in the interesting situation of being in line to a dukedom through his father, and in line to the throne through his mother, but interesting does not mean notable. StAnselm (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not likely to inherit either title. If he becomes the heir apparent due to the demise of his brother, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Proclamation

The topic, of a vague fictional "Shadow Proclamation" mentioned fleetingly in 3 or 4 episodes of Doctor Who is of zero encylcopedic or real world merit. That is to say, it does not exist outside the primary sources, and is of little consequence. The Doctor Who Wikia is its only appropriate home. Compare with the AfD for say, Time Agency. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sentence "The treaty is named after its founders and enforcers, the Shadow Proclamation, about whom little is known" gets me - as even the first part of that sentence isn't known (and certainly not by Wikipedia standards). Total Whocruft. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is only mentioned four times in the show, and it's likely Russell T Davies whipped the name off his head in an instant: unimportant. Alientraveller (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Doctor Who items, but if not appropiate, then Delete. When I was assessing this article, I was suprised that this article exists. It is a throwaway phrase, not notable enough for it's own article - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per REDVEЯS as unnecessary whocruft. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wrote an article where it plays a big part to B/FAC without linking it because I didn't think it'd be an article because it's so minor Sceptre ^(talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, Merge into some kind of list of "Organizations in Doctor Who" or similar (perhaps one might be created) to handle listings to main articles for UNIT and the like, and contain the brief, known and verifiable info (if any) on the Shadow Proclamation, Time Agency, etc.. Otherwise, delete. --Umrguy42 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or follow Umrguy42's suggestion) Edd (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon lack of real-world coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Steve ^{T • C} 10:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus....just delete it then. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willyturnbull (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - or Delete if no feasible target shows itself after a search. Not because it is cruft or because it should be in another site that's irrelevant to Wikipedia, but because there's very little to say about the Shadow Proclamation that will add to a reader's understanding of Doctor Who. --Kiz o r 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what little can be backed up with references, remove the speculation and the original research. Neither sufficiently notable nor well established for its own article. - Dravecky (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge i say merge. it needs more information but it could be placed under the list of doctor who aliens and monsters seeing as it's obviously of alien origin if not named after a specific group of aliens. As there are many articles on wikipedia about doctor who it does hold some relevance showing that there is some sort of organization between aliens in the Doctor Who universe at least enough so that they have created a parley of sorts. i suggest some more discussion before it is totally deleted. Stellrmn (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But... it's not notable? Why should this be on Wikipedia? The information exists, simply somewhere else.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is a suitable target, otherwise Delete. It has no real-world notability (and indeed is very minor within the show as well), so doesn't deserve an article of its own. Terraxos (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stellrmn with [of Doctor Who monsters and aliens]. At least keep until the end of the current series. What may seem minor now may become significant later. Rob.rjt (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Throwaway line with no real world relevance. Perfect for the Doctor Who Wikia, unsuitable for Wikipedia. WP:PLOT Paul 730 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's this season's arc word. Willy

Keep it or *Merge Until more information becomes available from the show, Shadow Proclamation is likely to be the seeded phrase mentioned by RTD recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.102.120 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While not important enough to merit its own page, an entry in the list of Doctor Who related items is certainly appropriate. Watson Ladd (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I say merge it with the Story arcs in Doctor Who since it is sort of a theme like Bad Wolf and Mr Saxon. Wild ste (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Writersworld

[1]