Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 4

< July 3	July 5 >

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 Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pinheiro

Non-notable athlete. He came second at an ISA event, but by itself that is not enough. BradV 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable athlete Dreamspy (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE as competitor at top level of his sport. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competing in the highest level of a sport meets WP:ATHLETE requirements for notability. Edward321 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an athlete competing at the highest level of his sport -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PUNK GUITAR (reissue with bonus track)

Reason LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what I did wrong...but this is an album by an artist that was deleted as NN. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. Artist is not notable, so neither is the album. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD G3 vandalism/hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You (2008 film)

I am confused about the notability of this movie. Yahoo! Search did not turn up any results, only movies with the same title. Marlith (Talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinfo, so tagged. "Abide Naseem" turns up nothing else than this very article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Leigh

Notability in question since Feb 2008. See WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources for WP:V. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO and no significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the exact same reasons setforth by Epbr123. LakeBoater (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. No RS evidence of notability cited or found. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Lynda Leigh was a huge British Glamour Model and British Porn Star. She still has a huge following and there are still websites dedicated to her. Lynda is listed on the Wikipedia UK Porn Stars page and as a free encyclopedia I think that the limited amount of information that is around about these hugely popular model's should remain, just because they are not current stars does not mean they have been forgotten. She also still has a large presence on Google and there are links within Wiki from other models of the same era to Lynda's page.Miss-teresa-may (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete the list. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum corps

This article attempts to categorically list all drum and bugle corps ever to exist; this is the equivalent to a page listing all Little League teams ever. It's just going to be a maintenance nightmare. This level of documentation does not belong in Wikipedia; it belongs on a site dedicated specifically to drum corps history. There is already a drum and bugle corps category; since it automatically includes links to all articles related to drum corps, it is all that is needed. JimBurnell (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe Rlrr is correct. Pommerenke (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it may never possible to make a complete list, this is not a sufficient reason for this article to be deleted. Also, how would one decide if a corps was notable or not? I think an article such as this, with the proper caveats, should stay. Rlrr (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "little league" drum and bugle corps??? The term doesn't even come close to fitting. I grew up in a town of 5,000 people and we had 6 or so little league baseball teams... but the nearest corps was on the other side of the state... and the second nearest one was in the next state! You may argue that there might be a corps on the list that doesn't belong because it isn't notable enough... but the list is certainly notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once you start with Colonial governors by year and their sub lists, you see that the bar to notability is set pretty low. Group29 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indiscriminate, directory-style list; I agree with the nomination and support its deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since WP isn't a paper encyclopedia, why not? TrekFanatic (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will be tough to ensure that every single one is listed so I suggest someone create a template that says, "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome"... Unless it's already been done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would hardly compare Junior Drum Corps to little league baseball, much more notable. War wizard90 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should certainly have a list of the notable ones that have articles in wp. that's the usual way. To list all one can find is another matter entirely, and that is what is meant by indiscriminate. If changed to List of notable...., then a keep. DGG (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps, it pains me a little to say there are non-notable drum corps. But the fact remains--in an activity that has seen a pruning from thousands of corps to dozens, there will be many groups whose histories will never warrant a full article, though they may be held dear in the hearts of many. I believe the standards should be set in a manner similar to those by the Wikiproject Music guidelines--national touring, good public visibility, or some notable exploit outside of the activity--these are qualities all current drum articles should meet, and I believe do (though some could use polishing). My opinion is that the focus of drum corps enthusiasts working on Wikipedia would be better if we considered articles on corps that have yet to be created--corps with storied histories such as Blessed Sacrament, Scout House, the Belleville Black Knights--before we consider those which may have only existed for a year or two before folding. Our energies would be better focused on a list that has not already become unwieldy to maintain. Mr Bound (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if I get to vote, since I'm the one who created the page, but I'd like to elaborate. First off, competitive drum corps has been around for nearly (more than?) 100 years now. There are already several websites devoted to drum corps history, most notably CorpsReps. In fact, take a look at CorpsReps' listing of all drum corps. There are nearly 2,100 drum corps listed!!! We don't even have articles yet for many existing senior corps, and the ones that exist are woefully poor. Take a look at some of the corps listed on the list of corps... who is ever going to write an article about the Ajax Sea Cadet Bugle Band of Guelph Ontario, or the Berea Scouts of Brooklyn NY? Especially since no one has yet even bothered to write an article about the 27th Lancers Drum and Bugle Corps or even the currently existing DCA powerhouse, Minnesota Brass Inc. Drum and Bugle Corps. Even if we limited the list to "notable" drum corps, we'd fight over who is notable, and when someone wrote a new article, it would have to be manually added to this list; things would never stay in sync. It's better just to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps tags, which automatically keep things in sync, right? One more thing, the reason I mentioned Little League is not to say that drum corps is anything like it, but to give an idea of the scope of the work that would be required to maintain a list of every drum corps that ever existed...and write an article about every one of them. I'm sure that every drum corps and Little League team was notable to someone... but come on! There's at least one corps in the list (Appalachian Sound) that I personally know never even had a public performance. I think the list needs to go, or at least needs to get pared down to corps that are or were actually well-known enough to support someone writing an article about them someday. JimBurnell (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
selective merge and delete a list of DCI corps is encyclopedic, this list of junior corps isn't. there are a few too many redlinks to make this list of much use either. If it's appropriate (I hope some DCI expert can help here), could this list be merged to a new section of List of DCI drum corps?--Rtphokie (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be inappropriate to merge many of the corps here with the List of DCI drum corps because that list is limited to currently existing junior corps (participants must be 22 or younger) that are affiliated with Drum Corps International. While DCI is the largest and most successful circuit still in existence, there are other circuits, such as Drum Corps Associates (where there is no age limit), Drum Corps United Kingdom, and Drum Corps Europe. Furthermore, there are a number of drum corps that are not affiliated with any circuit, such as the United States Marine Drum and Bugle Corps, Future Corps, the service academy corps, and Alumni Corps, as well as quite a few corps that are clearly notable but no longer exist, such as the Anaheim Kingsmen Drum and Bugle Corps, the 27th Lancers Drum and Bugle Corps, the Star of Indiana Drum and Bugle Corps, and the Chicago Royalaires Drum and Bugle Corps. But this list is trying to be exhaustive, and there's no way that anyone will ever write articles about 90% of the corps that are currently listed. --JimBurnell (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is better suited for DrumCorpsWiki. It's too unwieldy and esoteric for Wikipedia.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - per User:Mr Bound --T-rex 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The source we have is enough. This page shows list of players.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. The article is still a stub and is pending WP:RS to assert the notability. When reliable sources be found, the article can be re-created and expanded. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIC (programming language)

Nothing to show this is a notable programming language. Was prodded. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto per HelloAnnyong's comments above. LakeBoater (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a real programming language, as indicated by the referenced Tiobe index. A Wikipedia user wanting information about programming languages in general, or this language in particular, would be helped by this article. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This language (or the IDE) has extensive press coverage see g news. Faradayplank (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not about the programming language. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this may be a real programming language as per the references, but what information does this article give that could possibly satisfy a Wikipedia user wanting information about programming languages in general, or this language in particular? Czar Brodie (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing article sucks. But the language/IDE really is sufficiently well known, and deserves a better article. LotLE×talk 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show this with citations. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22MAGIC+programming+language%22+-Frobozz&btnG=Search LotLE×talk 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely linking to a Google search of a term does not by any means show notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R# or merge to a similar article. This article is too stubby in general.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programming languages. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.--Michael White^T·C 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's only one reference and two links to developers using the language. The topic is clearly not notable, and it does not need its own article. I agree that any pertinent information can be added to the List of programming languages, as the language is already on that list. — OranL (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bale

Actually a relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bale: I deleted this article due to consensus to delete. However, I failed to notice that the delete votes were expired due to improvements, and therefore a DRV was brought up. Per comments there, I am relisting this article. The reason for DRV is here: [1]. Soxred 93 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - none of the references seem to point to individual notability - as they all fail under "notability not being inherited" or "not memorial". Apologies seems like nice guy but not suitable for article. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regretably I have to agree with Hunting dog. The references in the article just are not sufficient to establish notability. Sorry. LakeBoater (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do believe the subject is notable per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what the article looked like before it was deleted by AFD, er, 2 days ago, but based upon the major, non-trivial sources and coverage cited here, I feel he satisfies notability beyond being Bale's dad and Steinhem's hubby. 23skidoo (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outside of the pay screen, there's his NYTimes Obit [2], his CNN obit [3] and the Seattle times one. [4] Behind it, you've got obits from the LAtimes [5], the Washington Post [6], and plenty more obits listed on google news from 2004 [7]. If you get an obituary in all the big national newspapers, you're notable. Clear pass of WP:Bio for me. Vickser (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The key question is: Are the newspaper articles non-trivial? In my opinion, they are borderline, although they are big newspapers and there are several articles. On this basis, David Bale is notable. Axl (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obits in all the major dailies across the US would indicate that sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the World

The article consists of little else but a long list of cities. Calling any city "Capital of the World" is a rather bold claim, and this is based only on a little-known list by a newspaper in London. Incidentally, London London won the title Capital of the World... Lists of this kind, and one many similar topics, are produced more or less all the time in newspapers all over the world. I've seen lists on the World's sexiest cities (Rio de Janeiro), on the World's rudest people (the English), on the cities with the higest number of one-night stands (Helsinki) and so on. I don't see how inherently unscientific and non-notable lists of this kind has any place on Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reflects only the opinion of this one publication. There is already a corresponding category. WillOakland (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to London where this would be a nicely sourced accolade. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by others, magazines and newspapers will sometimes contribute a ranking of some sort. Whether it's greatest films of all time, sexiest people, best Chinese restaurant in a small town that has one Chinese restaurant, or whatever, these help keep circulation up, but they generally are not history. The link is to an article that speaks of "measurable and objective data"; unfortunately, that link was broken before stub was written, so we'll never really know. Nice to see a British newspaper declare London to be the number one city, and three days before Christmas too! Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like original research to me. TrekFanatic (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Just repeats a newspaper story. (Besides which, Seattle wasn't on the list.) Northwestgnome (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey! I don't think I saw Boston! Anyway that is just some original research. --Vhoscythe^chatter 15:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Barcelona is not THAT important... --ざくら木 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We used to have an article that was a list of all the cities that were the X capital of the Y, e.g. corn capital of the United States or whatnot. I thought it was OK, myself, but it apparently went away. This is not as good as that article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This AFD has more interesting discussion than likely went into making that list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Black

No claim to notability, lack of verifiable third party references. I PRODed this back in May, the PROD was removed by the article creator (diff) so I proposed a merger instead. However, the lack of references makes it a poor candidate for merging, so I'm bringing it here. L'Aquatique[happyfourth !] 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —L'Aquatique[happyfourth !] 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent verifiable references Dreamspy (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Purely local radio personalities are rarely, if ever, sufficiently verifiable or notable to merit their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable sources to verify/indicate notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Milner (Police Officer)

A distinguished by unnotable career. Many other officers could have the same said about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - a good and useful career but that's not the same as notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made in good faith, but the subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TrekFanatic (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BIO, that a person winning multiple notable awards is notable. QPM and QCB seem to me to be sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability aside, there is not a single referenced source for the information contained in the article needed to verify the claims within. LakeBoater (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references are added before close of this AfD. WP:BIO states that someone is notable if "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", which is certainly claimed in the article - The Queen's Police Medal and Queen's Commendation for Bravery amongst others. But there is no verification so third party sources are needed. Ros0709 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This man has had a distinguished career, for sure, but he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. This man is not the subject of published, secondary source material. On this ground, he completely misses the mark on coming anywhere close to holding up to the biography notability standards. Scapler (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single purpose account devoted to Milner family - probable vanity article Dreamspy (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per LakeBoater. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Para Todas las Putas Celosas

unsourced; does not assert notability or importance of inclusion in WP Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreleased demo, can't be notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Lostprophets discography. Notability isn't claimed, and isn't likely seeing as this is an unreleased demo. Valid search term, so merge.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released or not it is a "thing" it happened thus it has value, it gives a value to someone looking at the history of the band/ what they did. Redirecting will lose the value of the information --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and it shows a shift in the bands style --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. If the information is merged, nothing is lost.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fabrictramp. Without nontrivial coverage by reliable sources, the unreleased demo cannot sustain its own Wikipedia article. B.Wind (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; this page has no source, but some contents.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Skin

Failed a previous AfD, the editor claims there is added info so I'm bringing it back...however, it's still got the same issues, an unreleased single fails WP:MUSIC because it can't chart if it isn't released. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to assert its notability, and lacks a sufficient body of content Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-4-2008 • 18:12:34 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (of course, haha) The recent singles of this particular band have gone on to develop into lengthier articles, and since 1997, not a single single has failed to reach high in the charts in Japan's Oricon ranking system. The article is valuable to the discography section for the band as well. The article will eventually be made, and in little more than two months at that. There is information gathered from several sources that aren't available all in one place, and this conveniently and encyclopedically gathers information.
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If it's released, if it goes into the charts, then is the time for an article. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again), nothing has changed since last week, it still fails WP:MUSIC, and still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. If/when it becomes notable, then it will be time for an article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is this, if you check the main website they have already confirmed its release date and tracklisting. What more confirmation do you guys need? Who cares whether or not it hits Top 30 on Oricon or not? I've seen a lot of song articles from Japanese bands on Wiki that haven't charted on Oricon yet still haven't been deleted. What should that have anything to do with whether or not it deserved to be retained as an article? Is Wikipedia only here to promote bands that ARE popular and think nothing of any other band? There's no justice in that, and by the same token, no respect for the bands or reason for Wikipedia to exist. If something exists, then Wikipedia should have an article for it. This upcoming single exists, and if you want verification, go to Dir en grey's main website, which is already referenced both in the main article for Dir en grey AND for the single pending deletion. It's understandable that the article got deleted for the first time due to uncertainty and lack of verification, but the evidence is there on the main website now. There should be no reason to suppress this artice solely on the fact that it doesn't chart on Oricon. It is an upcoming release, and should be labelled as such. DEADication (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) DEADication (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia does not exist to promote bands of any kind. Having an article in Wikipedia is not about "deserving" one or "justice", it is a matter of notability. We cannot/should not have an article about everything that exists. My nephew was in his junior high's musical. He does not have an article, but Robert Preston does. My nephew is not, at the moment, a notable actor. Robert Preston is. We've set up guidelines for separating the notable from the not notable. For singles, it's WP:MUSIC#SONGS. This one fails that standard. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waking The Cadaver (album)

Non notable self released album, fails WP:MUSIC LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G6 this and their other album, so tagged. Artist is a red link and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. No need to drag this out for the full five days. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Default keep. Suggest discussing the merge on the talk page, or being bold. — _Maggot^Syn 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod (Avenue Q)

Tagged for lack of refs three mounths ago, nothing has been done since. Buc (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason to delete has been provided. If the nominator wants sources adding he should exert himself rather than bothering the rest of us. Here's a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to do the work that the person who created the article should have done in the first place. Logic says that if info is tagged as not cited and remains that way for a while without anything being done, it should be removed. Also looking at that link I would have to quation it's notablity too. Buc (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE. This states emphatically, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. That is obviously the case here in that either sources could be added through normal editing or the article could be merged to Avenue Q through normal editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what is "normal editing"? I didn't write this so I've no idea where this info has come from. Buc (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But at some point, the article NEEDS to be improved. It doesn't happen by magic and it isn't helpful to insult the nominator. The burden to source information lies with the editor adding the information. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Avenue_Q#Characters. While the nom gave an editing issue as a reason for deletion (which falls under WP:SOFIXIT), I'm not seeing an assertion of real world notability in the article. An admittedly quick look at the list provided by Colonel Warden showed notability for the characters as a group, but not this individual one. Perhaps a spinoff article covering all the characters would be in order?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is quite specifically about Rod. Sources such as hit #3 are about Rod too. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Fabrictramp. Rod is certainly not of the more important characters in the show. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate character article. GlassCobra 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlbumFreak

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. "We hope to become a known provider... " Sorry, boys, come back when you have become a known provider, Wikipedia isn't here to help you become known. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bringing this to deletion so quickly after it was created (according to the revision history, three minutes) seems to be a case of demolishing the house while it's still being built, however it is written the first person and is likely a COI advertisment for an unknown website looking to use Wikipedia to boost their traffic. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that it is generally not right to AfD an article minutes after its creation, but I AfDed this after good faith google searching. This article never meets WEB notability, so AfD is the only way. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't creating this page to try to boost traffic, we're creating it to become a more established source. The page is being edited more and more to reflect what we're doing, and hope we can keep it alive. The biography was written by another staff member in the first person for the myspace, and has since been edited to not be, along with the rest of the article.Hxck (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that you're involved with the website makes its creation a conflict of interest which is not allowed on Wikipedia (and don't think of asking someone else to recreate it, that's still COI) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Business' FAQ. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Delete it, simple as that. It's not a big deal. And thanks a lot for your so-called "humor." Didn't I say we weren't using it to become popular? We can do that on our own. We were using it to be a more solid and trustworthy source than some site that just pops up out of nowhere. And John, I'm 20 years old, don't call me a boy again. Hxck (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he was not using it in a derogatory manner. It's just that Wikipedia has guidelines for things such as notability, verification, conflicts of interest, The use of Wikipedia as your personal webspace and notability for websites among many others. I'm sure the creation of this page was indeed in good faith and is not meant to be negative or positive toward the content of your actual website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TrekFanatic (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright On with it then. Hxck (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AfD's can last as long as 7 days (and as short as a few minutes). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like others, I have a longstanding concern about instant AfDs, but this is pretty cut-and-dried. A great many outfits and individuals believe that Wikipedia articles will help put them on the map, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Ravenswing 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately The page redirects to pay per click boilerplate. Zredsox (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RG's an idiot and is kicking a dead horse, as I explained a couple times that that wasn't the reasoning. Apparently the staff here knows the rules, but doesn't know how to read. And zredsox is incorrect, since something is wrong with the hosting (that I have no control over.) The mods before him can vouch that that wasn't the case before. 72.227.69.101 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The address a day later still directs to money making scheme of some sort (ppc biolerplate.) Hosting problems are not in the purview of Wikipedia, and I can only comment based on what comes up when I go to the world wide web address in question.Zredsox (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man I guess I never really knew how serious people were when they said that the Wiki staff was inadequate. 72.227.69.101 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, the joke was on them, or possibly you - the wiki "staff" is made up of any volunteer who wants to be a part, one of whom is currently... uhm... you. tomasz. 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (having not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources). COI itself is not a reason for deletion but, it does cause problems and that why it is discouraged. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck wiki :) how about that lol let put it on a fake better wiki, always a good idea they wont bitch that we put it on our selfs. or ill wait for someone else to put it on. the site is down because of a domain or our host is having problems beyond our controle, tbh we dont need wiki its fulla shit anyways lol. END — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albumfreak (talk • contribs)

lololol we're probably going to get banned for this. Hey, John wants to call us boys...let's act like boys. :] Hxck (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all as incoherent original research. Sandstein 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim

Contested prod/prod2, removed by author. Article is entirely original research; it cites no sources and seems to be an essay of sorts. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm adding the following articles for the same reasons:~~

~~— HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)~~ The other articles have other issues, so separate AfDs have been created. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed all original interpolation, and I cited sources in the original article. This subject has been studied in depth by scholars, just because it is not the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not automatically make it invalid. Heiser and other scholars (whose names I will include shortly) are accredited and published Hebrew scholars. Martha H. Jones (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides Heiser here are a few other authors who discuss this subject.

Sayce, A. H. Polytheism in Primitive Israel, p. 25, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Oct., 1889) pp. 25-36. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/1450128>

Gods, Goddesses and Myths of Creation, Harper and Row, New York, 1974, pp 21-25. & Pelican, The Greek Myths: 1, 1986, 28:3, p.144.

Cox, Wade. The Elect as Elohim. <http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p001.html>

Collins, Andrew, From the Ashes of Angels - The Forbidden Legacy of a Fallen Race (1996)

I will be adding more citations to the article if I am given time. Martha H. Jones (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as a heads up, Martha is the author of the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More authors.

The Early History of Heaven by J. Edward Wright in Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith in Back Matter

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series) by Mark S. Smith in Front Matter

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith in Back Matter

Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon As Bureaucracy. Handy, Lowell K.

I did not cite these as I was not quoting their work focusing mainly on Heiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha H. Jones (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- Unfortunately, User:Martha_H._Jones is creating "content forks" left and right, is using highly non-standard transliterations of Hebrew (such as "Aleim"[sic!] for the word more correctly transcribed "Elohim"), and is not really complying with Wikipedia policies in creating new articles. She's apparently diligently (though selectively) scouring the scholarly literature, but this enthusiasm will be of little use unless she can bring it more in line with the needs and requirements of Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have not studied all the different interlinear Hebrew Bibles that use the term Aleim, like the one at <scripture4all.org> Martha H. Jones (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to use interlinears, when I can directly use the BHS -- without a need for such crutches intended for people who don't really know Hebrew? AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Higgins in his classic book Anacalypsis (V. 1; p. 64-65, 67) gives the etymology of Elohim, originally spelled aleim. He states the following: "Perhaps there is no word in any language about which more has been written than the word Aleim; or, AS MODERN JEWS CORRUPTLY CALL IT, ELOHIM. The root … al, the root of the word Aleim, as a verb or it its verbal form, means to mediate, to interpose for protection, to perserve; and a noun, a mediator, an interposer. In its feminine its has two forms …ale, and … alue. In its plural masculine it makes … alim, in is plural feminine … aleim."

"In the old language God was called Al, Ale, Alue, and Aleim, more frequently Aleim than any other name." Gamble, Eliza Burt. God Idea of the Ancients,

Dermott Fictel

Non-notable character that, if merged, would only make that article worse. Rau's Speak Page 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no reason for it to be merged with Brock Samson. The fact that he might be his kid is OR. Rau's Speak Page 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete following nom~~. Utterly non-notable character. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, character is not notable, having appeared in a supporting role in one episode, and most of this article is original research because nothing is known about him. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge into list of minor characters. WP is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and if someone comes across an unfamiliar character's name, they should be able to search for it here and find some information. But obviously not worth an entire article. DGG (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is a comprehensive encyclopedia of notable information. There is nothing notable about him. Rau's Speak Page 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of characters from The Venture Bros. or List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros.(Duane543 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merge into List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. If he becomes more important someone can always create a new article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. GlassCobra 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. - a minor character who is not notable on his own --T-rex 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge; the source list is not enough.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unsourced WP:BLP if nothing else. I'm not sure how to interpret that "oppose" comment. Sandstein 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn F. O'Grady

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marilyn F. O'Grady

Unsuccessful minor-party candidate in both a House and Senate election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians - being a candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her campaign was fined for numerous violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Perhaps this fact adds some notability. See this press release from the Federal Election Commission. --Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I suppose. I don't really know if I am one to determine whether she is notable or not, but I will say that she was the Republican party candidate in a congressional race -- a minor party candidate only later. I saw a redlink to her name on the Carolyn McCarthy page, so I went and created an article for her, seeing as she is the wife of my dentist. But now that I have my moment of glory, I'd just like to say that my mother was a big Carolyn McCarthy supporter, but one day she saw the O'Grady's at the supermarket, and, not wanting to piss off her dentist, went up to them and said, "So, this is really exciting!!!" Her social skills are better than mine. Okay, I'm done here. Zweifel (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Zone

AfDs for this article:

Tagged for notability since September, and for references since August 2006. Nothing but arguing and accusations of vandalism on the talk page. But regardless of the fact that nobody wants to improve this article, I'm seeing absolutely nothing in the way of notability per WP:WEB, just a bunch of fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic article with no real purpose other then to satisfy itself WP:FANCRUFT--Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, quite spam-ish, reads like a PR, talk page full of very verbose nonsense. Niczar ⏎ 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any references in "popular culture" are too questionable. This article sounds like a self-promotion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 3+ year old article with no independent reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, not per WP:UGH, but as unsourced (WP:V) and therefore also as non-notable. Chef Tanner, notability on Wikipedia is generally not thought of as inherited; if the fries as such have no coverage, it does not help the article that the company who makes them does. Sandstein 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Flavour Fries

Un-referenced non-notable product. triwbe (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this isn't notable. Might violate WP:BLSF (guidelines for biographies of living snack foods, similar to WP:BLP) where it contains bits of promotion and criticism, along with a comparison with Tesco brand Bacon Flavour Fries. If it's kept, then rename it "Smith's Brand Bacon Flavour Fries" since it's about a specific brand of snack food. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-encyclopaedic is the politest thing I can think of to say -Hunting dog (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TrekFanatic (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an article, it is non-notable. But for £0.45p -- hey, not a bad price. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They sound tastey but it's not a proper article. --Vhoscythe^chatter 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is full of individual products from other corporations such as products from Frito Lay. The company is notable therefore so is its products. The article does need some work with citations and general writing overall and probably should have a title change as noted by nominator to Smith's Brand Bacon Flavour Fries. Additionally WP:UGH and "I don't like it" are not reasons to delete an article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chef Tanner —Preceding unsigned comment added by U$er (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct Pennsylvania sports teams

Delete Simply duplicates a category Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The article lists many teams (such as the Johnstown Red Sox) that cannot be included in the category because Wikipedia does not yet have articles about them. Stepheng3 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a second AFD discussion on this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct Pennsylvania sports teams (2nd nomination) that was created while this first one is still open. Probably needs an admin to look at it??? We shouldn't have two open discussions, should we?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content below was copied from the accidentally created 2nd nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The article lists many teams (such as the Johnstown Red Sox) that cannot be included in the category because Wikipedia does not yet have articles about them. Stepheng3 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The benefits of parallel categories and lists are discussed under WP:LIST. Criteria for inclusion in this list need to be identified - right now every little league team that ever formed and broke up is eligible for this article - but that shouldn't be a big deal. Townlake (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists are different from categories. categories only group existing articles, but a list can include links to articles as well as other items worth listing but not necessarily worthy of an article. There's value in having both.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second AFD discussion, but the first AFD has not closed yet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct Pennsylvania sports teams. We shouldn't have two open discussions, should we?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

end copy-paste

Comment I merged the content of the 2nd nomination here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material in question is encyclopedic, and no valid argument has been presented for deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Technology

This was a contested {{prod}} back in August (the nominator's concerns were "not notable, unencyclopedic, advertising, POV, corporate puff, conflict of interest"). I am still not convinced that this article satisfies the criteria at WP:CORP. The depth of coverage in the citations, for instance, is questionable: do people think this coverage is significant? The company has apparently recently changed its name after being sold to a consortium (the consortium has no article). So I am taking the opportunity to bring it here for a consensus: if there is no consensus to delete the article, then it should probably be renamed to ciboodle. RobertG ♬ talk 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Pascal.Tesson deleted ciboodle: 02:24, 11 October 2007 deleted "Ciboodle" (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11))
Delete, if the mother company does not assert notability, then certainly this neither. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete originating editor is User:Graham Technology; bulk of edits are either by this editor or IPs assigned to Graham Technology. The article is advertising, although not as blatant as some written by employees or owners of other companies that have been deleted over the past few years. The lack of independent coverage by reliable sources indicate a failure to reach the level needed for WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano

Delete non notable unreleased film per WP:FILM Mayalld (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. No reason for notability given. Black ngold29 16:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) /Oo7565 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Swami Premananda of Trichy

Religious leader only known for his criminal activity. He is a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep no strong opinion about this, but his case and conviction was big news at the time. Tintin 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I lead to its creation, but I'm going more weak as I have doubts. Do we have anyone in India who would know whether he's notable there?--T. Anthony (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was still attracting attention from the world's two highest circulation English language non-tabloid newspapers five and eight years after his conviction. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Swami Premananda is a well known spiritual leader, particularly in Tamil Nadu, India and his native Sri Lanka. The case against him was high profile, involving the famous lawyer Ram Jethmalani. He's been in the news very recently as well regarding his health [11] -- Jagadishwaran (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

"

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Premananda (Self Revelation Church)

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an important personality. Delete Sindhian (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor religious leader, could not find any substantial reliable sources. Also needs to be removed from the Swami Premananda list. GlassCobra 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Baser

Article appears to be spam, not an encyclopedia article. Lack of WP:RS (as of this writing) is also troublesome. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is under construction. Please wait to be finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved. No promotional language is used. The spam tag can be removed now.

See the talk page for follow ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, but the basic problems remain regarding WP:RS and language that appears to be more promotional than educational. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please be aware that the author of this article has attempted to remove it from the AfD slate: [12] Ecoleetage (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article does not present any independent sources. As a result, it's unclear that this is a significant (notable) software product. The text is still borderline on being blatant promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SPAM and WP:RS. When I see terms like 'During its trial period the program is fully functional', it makes you wonder if there are crystall ball issues here too. Artene50 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - for now, it is WP:SPAM. It may be able to be resurrected as a part of an article on programs used for sequencing later. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sebwite, if this was split off from another article, you can undo its removal there if consensus agrees with you, although I can't imagine that this level of detail would be accepted in the main article. An unadopted policy proposal has no bearing on this discussion. Sandstein 20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Google Street View

An unnecessary detailed list on the devlopment of Street View, and mostly original research. Also, Google Street View already has a small, to-the-point table on this development. --FlagFreak ^TALK 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is not original research, and is far from it. This is all sourced information. This is a topic the media is following heavily, and numerous news articles detail when GSV has been added to different areas. The references provided very often show the dates in which the service was added to a particular place, and the reaction from the areas where it was added. Besides, there is still more work to be done on this page. The references are just a few of many that are available out there. The table on Google Street View does not show development, but is just an overview of areas covered. The information found on this page was previously on GSV, was not challenged there, and was split off as it grew. GSV, which was just introduced in other countries the other day, will only grow more over time, necessitating more information to be provided, not less. Sebwite (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral Sources seem reasonable, information is being cited as needed, article has Under Construction tag reflecting improvements to come; yes, the author needs to be careful to avoid original research as the article progresses, but the "unnecessary" argument in the nomination doesn't persuade me. Townlake (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to neutral based on article history I wasn't aware of at the time of my original statement. Townlake (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like Google Street View coverage areas, whose deletion is currently being debated, only with some additional information about when a city was put on the internet. Unless you have specific information about the precise dates that the photos were taken (as opposed to uploaded), the "history" of when sections of town were added to the internet is of no interest to anyone. The title implied that it would be about how the service itself was developed, which would actually be a worthwhile article. This is trivia that really is useless trivia, kind of like pinpointing to the minute when Ralph Malph was first introduced on Happy Days. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments 1) Ralph Malph is an American treasure. 2) I personally found the article interesting even if it's incomplete. Given the message implied by the Under Construction tag, seems reasonable to me to give the article's creator (and the community) a little room to work on the article - heck, it's only been up two days. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has the nature of a progress report and so is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not the news. Perhaps it might usefully be migrated to Wikinews? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does not meet exclusion guidelines under WP:NOT#NEWS. News articles like the ones used on this page are perfectly valid under WP:N and WP:RS, which alone should be grounds for a Speedy Keep. Sebwite (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't see how any aspect of WP:SK is in play here. Townlake (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This had already been deleted twice, here and here. Can this be "speedy delete" for recreated material? All he did was change the name to "Development of Google Street View", and put the information in a slightly different layout. No matter what you call it, its still the same article with the same information.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as mentioned, this article contains material that was previously a part of Google Street View, was well accepted there, and has been split off since for the purpose of improvement. One user, FlagFreak, seems determined to have it deleted for some reason, and seems to be getting a lot of other delete requests through the "follow the leader" approach, which gives the false appearance of concensus to delete material that perfectly fits on Wikipedia. Sebwite (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask that you assume good faith. Please don't claim that the process is illegitimate in this venue. If you felt that they process was flawed in the previous delete debate, you may bring it up at WP:DRV. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment For the record, I didn't realize similar articles had been deleted twice before, and I understand the frustration of those who have already had similar discussions over this material. ~~That said, I'm sticking with my Keep for now because, in my opinion, this idea does seem to have potential as a useful timeline.~~ Townlake (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY Weak keep This article is well sourced and presumably will not swell to an indiscriminate list. It is, however, very similar to the previous article which was deleted at AfD. It isn't word for word, but I would say that >60% of the article is the same. Hopefully this article is improved further and it becomes a success story (article gets deleted, new and better article forms from the ashes). But I can see where people are coming from who are frustrated over the seeming recreation of deleted material. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok, I'm not a registered user, so that will probably be erased, by I'd just like to say that this is apparently NOT original research as everything is sourced substantially, and this article is actually useful here. I think that if it's the 3rd time people are trying to recreate this article is because it's a needed article. 90.6.183.151 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You have as much right to participate as I do. What the guide for deletion recommends (the doc I linked) is that you present evidence rather than opinion about an article (because it is easy to use IP addresses to express opinions more than once per editor). You are, of course, welcome to register and help us improve the encyclopedia if you wish. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Sppedy delete Similar articles (1 and 2) have been deleted twice, and this article was shortened tremendously and made into a simple table (see Google Street View#Development). --FlagFreak ^TALK 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion #2 came as a result of the page not being given a chance. That is the harm of proposing a page with the {{construction}} tag for deletion, which is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. Sebwite (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Let's not throw words like violation around. The article was created directly from the content in AfD (comment notwithstanding) with the "underconstruction" tag applied. It went two days without a major edit. while not the "several" that the template recommends, the assumption that the page would be unedited isn't far out of reach. The construction and "in progress" templates are not protection from deletion, especially in this case, where the article appeared to be substantial recreation of previously deleted material. In this case, we need to respect AfD as a process and defer a little to mechanisms designed to prevent that process from being gamed. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See "notes" below. Sebwite (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet again; there's no point in describing exactly when each area was added. --NE2 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. This is something that has been followed by the media from day 1 when GSV was introduced in May 2007. Also, see WP:USELESS - saying there is "no point" is not a valid reason for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after zooming in. Simply not notable. Whatever may be said about the development of this relatively secondary feature of a notable website/service is possible to say in Google Street View. When not serving as an indiscriminate list, this verges on being a magazine article or essay. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the sources that are provided, this page does meet WP:N. Sebwite (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: 1.) I am currently working on this proposal that would define the guidelines for proposing a page with the {{construction}} tag for deletion, and I welcome and encourage everyone here to comment. It would only allow for deletion of such pages for a limited number of circumstances, such as blatant spam, attacks, or copyright violations. It would not allow for deletion in the event of recreation of deleted material, as such a tag can be placed there while the article is being improved since it was deleted. 2.) I am planning on challenging the current policy regarding speedy deletion of recreated material, especially with the {{construction}} tag. Many articles are deleted as a result of issues that can be corrected. I, personally, have recreated a large number of previously deleted articles, addressing the issues for which they were deleted, and using the {{construction}} tag along with hidden comments to let others know my plans. 3.) Also a part of the policies I am proposing is one to allow for more time upon a creator's request while an article is under construction. Though the template currently says "several days," and a bot will usually remove this tag if it is not edited at all for 7-10 days, part of my proposal is that creators of articles can state they need for time on the discussion page of an article. Since Wikipedia is completely a volunteer service that people edit in their spare time, and it is likely that a large percentage of editors have full time jobs and families, my proposal would be understanding of these time constraints. 4.) To the closing administrator: I am hoping this page will not be deleted, but would rather be kept or merged. Even if it is deleted, its material will be returned to Google Street View, where it was before, and was not challenged there, which is akin to a merge. And most likely, as GSV is expanded to more places around the world in the coming months, there will come the need to create more articles like this one. So a deletion of this would only be temporary. Deleting would be an unwise choice. If you think your decision should be to delete, you should reconsider right now. Sebwite (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of List of Google Street View locations, which was never completed? Much more than a week. --FlagFreak ^TALK 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind, this week, I have been busy working on the proposal I described above, so I've done little work on Google or any other articles. I am trying to address situations like this one and a variety of others I have been through or observed, should they come up in the future. Sebwite (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:NOTDIR, WP:L, Recreation of deleted material, WP:MOS. --FlagFreak ^TALK 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a version of Google Street View coverage areas under a new guise -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Debate closed by Oo7565 at 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is

The article is about a tongue twister with no notability beyond a brief mention in a short story. It never entered the Anglophonic lexicon; unless you are a die-hard fan of "Flowers for Algernon," you never heard it. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --FlagFreak ^TALK 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mixed feelings on this one. It is a well-known exercise in parsing or punctuation, and I'd heard of it before reading Flowers for Algernon (later in the Cliff Robertson film Charley). But like "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers", I can't see this as a search term on Wikipedia; I'd prefer that this and 8Buffalo would be in an article about such editorial exercises, and that this be a redirect to that. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flowers for Algernon. That's where it originated, and by itself it has no notability. Leonard^(Bloom) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in sources which predate that story. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Colonel Warden said, evidently notable - just click on the Colonel's links for news, books and scholar. Also an entry in Brewers predates the Flowers for Algernon use by at least six years but probably more as I am referring to the 1953 edition, could have been there from the start (1870). Have updated the article accordingly. If the outcome of this debate is merge then I would suggest James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher as a better destination - buffalo x8 does not require punctuation & illustrates an entirely different point. Finally whilst the nominator is correct that it is a tongue twister, this fact is incidental to its notability & is not mentioned in the article. nancy ^(talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's in Brewer and it's in Flowers for Algernon (or at least the film adaptation, Charly). Brewer would have been enough. I wanted to be the first to say "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo", but FlagFreak beat me to it. --Jenny 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genius! nancy ^(talk) 12:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough there to make it a decent entry. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emergency medical services. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical retrieval

Delete non notable neologism, and WP is not a dictionary. Mayalld (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added content to the page to indicate that this term is not new and in widespread use within the medical community over many years. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a neologism (which I presume is a term used by editors whose may be unfamiliar with an expression). As to whether it is non notable, I guess that for a western community in which the risk of such a process is 1 in every 50 individuals, that 2% of the population would regard this life-saving experience as highly notable. FlyingDoctor (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub not a dicdef. Sources are provided and so notability is demonstrated. Neologism is not a reason to delete (just reword). Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Emergency medical services. Not being in EMS or medicine, I am not 100% sure that there is not some major difference, but given the size of this article, I think it could be slipped in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still neology; we have not have any actual external links, only cite by groups.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh Real Loud

The expression appears to be a neologism that is non-notable. Prod was declined by main editor. JD554 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Not notable enough, certainly not on Wikipedia. It might qualify to be mentioned on Wiktionary, though. StaticGull Talk 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How long will the page take to be deleted, please allow me a little longer to fix the page, i am new at this and will grasp how to do it soon :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcfadyen (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:AFD the discussion will last for 5 days before the consensus opinion is acted upon. To show the article needs to remain you will need to add reliable sources which will verify the notability of the article. --JD554 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one of those stupid text symbols that shouldn't belong on Wikipedia. -- Vhoscythe ^chatter 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, article has no references and is written pretty much entirely by the creator of the little icon that's the core of the page. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - also, this is SPAM and COI - the article author is "the popular Emoticon author Matt McFadyen", pushing his own creation. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not as notable as the popular emoticon author Candy-Panda's creation LMAOROFLWAFFLECOPTERPMSLWTFOMGBBQFTW. --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Steelpan History

Notability for this subject appears to be less than marginal. The article's author appears to design and build the instrument in question, hence some sticky WP:COI issues. Problems with WP:RS are also evident. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure The german article (from the same author) has kept itself since february, which states that some notability may be given. Although the author might have some advertising background, I think the sources he provides could be reliable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Possibly notable subject, but the badly translated article reads like WP:COI original research, has no inline references and the sources given do not seem to be especially reliable. Sandstein 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - needs more sources, but appears to be legitimately notable --T-rex 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this a synthesis of? --T-rex 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reading of WP:SYN might help clarify the question here. B.Wind (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. It's clear that the author is using his intimate personal knowledge of the Steelpan scene in Switzerland, and has written a piece of decent original research. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is more or less what I assumed, but I personally don't see a problem in combining Steelpan History with a particular country. --T-rex 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contrary to Bearian, the article cited nothing remotely resembling a reliable source. The one "dictionary" entry cited was a copy of the Wikipedia article, and admitted as much. Sandstein 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockfight (human)

Appears to be a kinky neologism, and the article makes a few claims that are not backed via the WP:RS requirements. Serious consideration and saucy double-entendres are welcome for this discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Kinky is the perfect word to describe it! -- Vhoscythe ^chatter 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stiff delete per nom. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I found the article rather entertaining, it's hard to call it notable. Seems to be a great example of WP:NEO and not worthy of inclusion if it remains unsourced. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Neologism: Doesn't sound like many people have taken it up; phrase sounds like someone's just jerking around. Lack of citations (except for early crowing for websites) indicates author may have already blown his load. Can try to re-erect topic and come again if wide-spread practice ends up attracting harder evidence. --Closeapple (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a load of old bollocks to me. Phnarr phnarr! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's WP:Complete bollocks Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is already sourced, and I shall add more sources showing that it is practised in several countries.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those "sources" are just links to (NSFW) external websites. Reliable sources demonstrating encyclopedic notability would meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, from WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If something is on a web site, it is published. That's just as well, because if all articles without references to hard-copy books were deleted, that would be a lot of deletions. It is not clear what third-party means in this context. Some of what is published in these sites may well be written by people who have been involved in such activities; does that invalidate their contributions?--Whipmaster (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the first sentence of the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, [...], whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". The external websites you link to clearly fail to qualify as reliable sources. They are, as you point out, they are hardly independent of the topic, nowhere near third party, or secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's verifiable all right. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Bijon Setu massacre

The entire article is dependent on three sources. The identity of the persons responsible is vague. The motive behind the murder is vague. If this is a notable massacre, it certainly should have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. But this lacks WP:RS. Thus this particular incident fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed this nomination based on a request by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) on my talk page. I have no knowledge of this subject and no opinion on this deletion request. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep. 17 people got killed, that's a notable event. I'm not that impressed by the lack of significant coverage in English-language reliable sources about an event that occurred in Bijon Setu, Calcutta, in 1982. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 17 people got killed - that is not notable per WP:N. See Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about 18? Would 18 be okay? I know some people in India, and I think I can make this work. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some significant coverage in reliable sources to establish some notability and would note one external link in the article says 'reading the pages of the news papers that widely covered the massacre after it occurred'. Given that I doubt there are many Indian newspapers from 1982 freely available on the internet I think the coverage found is pretty good. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I have expanded the article with reliable sources. Though I wasn't acquainted with the massacre I did find it to be notable after some research. This shows the changes I have made after afd nom. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important article on an important event in West bengal history. Sindhian (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Withdrawing nomination per the improvement done by KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk · contribs). When I AfDed the article, that version had little evidence to prove notability. But after the massive rework by KnowledgeHegemonyPart2, I think notability have been established. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 have done excellent job in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, due to the lack of reliable sources to verify the article or establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft art

Contested PROD. Can't find a verifiable definition or notable mention of the subject anywhere. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the "contested prod" referred by the nominator was strictly procedural. I had removed the PROD simply because there was no reason provided in the PROD template. I have no opinion about the subject matter or the article. --Bardin (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability here. The article simply appears to be a personal essay on some subtopic of copyleft. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources reliable or otherwise. WillOakland (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Wood, keep Magennis. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Magennis

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league. I do not believe that a handful of mentions in local newspapers are enough to meet WP:N (the reason the prod was removed). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding Garry Wood to this AfD as its prod was removed without explanation by an IP. He is also a young footballer who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE (per nom) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. While neither seem notable, I fail to see the logic of putting these two together, given that not only are they not in the same league, they aren't even playing in the same country. One is Scottish, and the other is Irish playing for a Welsh team in an English league. The second AFD was added to this after some people had already commented. Wouldn't it be cleaner - and perhaps simpler, to just do a second AFD? Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically to save wasting everyones time. The second player (Wood) is even less notable. Given that I added it a couple of hours after the AfD started, and that only two editors had already commented, I didn't see a problem (especially as AfDs usually end up with at least 8-10 comments). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither have yet to play at the highest level, defined as a fully professional league per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Magennis as he has been the subject of articles in two independent sources. The subject fails to meet the specific WP:ATHLETE criterion, but this should be overlooked if notability can be established by other means. My view is that significant coverage has already taken place, sufficient to pass WP:N. CJPargeter (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in the introduction, I do not believe that local newspapers constitute significant independent coverage - semi-professional, reserve and youth players will always receive some mention in the local press. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with this position regarding local newspapers; not only does it appear to be incompatible with the reliable sources policy, but also as one of the "local" papers is the largest-selling paper in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, there is a citation in a UK-wide edition, and I've added this to the article.CJPargeter (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:ATHLETE but meets WP:BIO with Belfast Telegraph coverage. I'd hardly call it a local paper, it can be found (not easily mind you) on the newstand in Canada, with the London papers, unlike what we normally call local papers. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for Magennis because of Belfast Telegraph feature article.[13] That it's in a section called "Local Heroes" makes me pause a bit, but when you combine it with the other few articles which also deal primarily with him, it's just enough for me. Delete for Wood, though. Vickser (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Magennis, I think there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the primary notability guideline for him. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I already said some time ago, an interview in a newspaper is not an assertion of notability. It's not uncommon to see non-league players being interviewed by local or regional newspapers; this however cannot influence the fact they are non-league players which cannot be eligible of a Wikipedia article. The subject obtained a couple of interviews just because he sat on a bench during a football game, and then nothing else of relevant. So I think the man fails WP:BIO due to lack of substantial depth coverage. --Angelo (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Goldrick

Non-notable. This person appears to have had some political appointments and now works for a not-for-profit organization. This does not meet criteria for notability. —G716 <^T·_C> 10:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography, doesn't qualify as a politician biography either. The article as-written fails WP:NOT; it's just this guy's curriculum vitae. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have been elected to any political office. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as it is clearly non-notable. --Speed King (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability at all. --Crusio (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is a crystal ball violation at this time. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Rugby League State of Origin series

The 2008 State of Origin series concluded two days ago, and it is too early to predict anything about the 2009 series. As such, this article should be deleted as it is clearly crystal ball gazing and not be re-created until some things are actually known about next year's series. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead says it all; The 2008 series will be the 28th in its history, With Queensland having won thirteen and New South Wales won twelve series this will be a crucial series. When we can have more on the games than "TBD" it should be recreated, until then it should remain deleted. Five Years 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We know nothing at all about the series: Where the games will be played, when the games will be played, who will be playing for the various teams, etc. The only content is editorial anyway; it is not our place to label series as "crucial". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. WP:Crystal •Florrie•leave a note• 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, too soon, I think. It's a certainty that it will be played, but there is no other concrete information available yet. As such, would appear to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I know this competition is likely to go ahead, but it is too soon and therefore fails WP:CRYSTAL, especially seeing as though no dates have been confirmed. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Goldrick-Rab

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable. This person is an assistant professor who seems to be doing what she is paid for - teaching, research and publishing. But none of this seems to make her any more notable than the thousands of other assistant professors in the world. —G716 <^T·_C> 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see her as passing WP:PROF. This looks just a tad better than a curriculum vitae. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom. A junior academic and a rather recent PhD. The record does not indicate anything particularly notable yet, just a good academic in the beginning of her career. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are rarely notable. Let's see again 10 years from now. --Crusio (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? I see that this very same article has undergone AfD once before with deletion as a result. Isn't recreation then a reason to speedily delete? --Crusio (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to let this AfD run its course. The previous article was deleted a year ago (as a copyvio, before substantive debate was conclusively finished), and it is concievable that something substantially new happened since then. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete GS lists citations as 13, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1... I'd be willing to disagree with Crusio if there was evidence of substantial impact of her work, but I think Nsk92 describes it well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said in the first AfD, “Insufficiently accomplished to pass WP:PROF yet, I think.” I don't see anything here to change that position. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . One book coauthorship and 6 or 7 articles? not notable yet. DGG (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Spain

Following List of Spanish musicians. List is too general. Mostly red links, notability dubious for most of the bands. Relevant bands can be incorporated into Music of Spain. Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I was unaware of the list until now, and as someone who follows Spanish popular music I found it very useful. The "red links" are mostly quite notable bands that I used to listen to when growing up - in fact, I may fill them in. Burning, Danza Invisible, La Década Prodigiosa, Los Elegantes, Gabinete Caligari, Greta y los Garbo, Los Inhumanos, Kaka de Luxe, Loquillo y los Trogloditas, Objetivo Birmania, Nacha Pop, Obús, Olé Olé, Los Rebeldes, La Unión, Tam Tam Go!, Seguridad Social and Los Secretos are in particular notable, have strings of number 1s to their name and are household names. I would even further add to that list with bands like No Me Pises Que Llevo Chanclas, Los Renegados, Revólver, Los Brioles, La Terremoto de Alcorcón etc etc. So I think the list serves as a good place for future articles to be made... to list all these bands under Music of Spain would make the latter too long, and also Music of Spain is not just about pop music. I personally think that we should not just keep this list, but expand it, and I think we should create articles for the ones in red (at least, for those who have enjoyed chart success. I really disagree with Anna Lincoln's comment that most of the bands' notability is dubious. I'd say I've heard of 90% of the red links. We just need someone on EN Wikipedia with time on their hands and an interest in Spanish pop and rock music to expand this section. If I have the time, I'll work on some of it this summer. Tris2000 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may be biased here, as I created this article ;-), but the reason I created it was precisely because I saw that the list of bands in Music of Spain (which I also contributed) was getting too long, and I felt that a specific page was needed. Similar pages exist for other countries and states, even where English is not the first language, such as Finland, Iceland or Japan, and even particular cities, such as Gothemburg. The fact that there are many red links often doesn't mean that the bands were not notable, most of them are very famous and successful in Spain and Spanish-speaking countries, but simply that nobody has had time yet to write articles about them in the English Wikipedia. There are, I agree, a handful of bands in the list (added by others, obviously) that I've never heard of, and it's possible that some of these are really not notable enough for inclusion, but I don't have the time or the inclination to be constantly policing what people decide to add. Nevertheless, I think that even if some fans may use this article to list obscure bands which maybe shouldn't be there, that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the article in itself. El monty (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have edited the list and there is now a lot more blue among the red! El monty (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list has good potential. It should include sources and more information (maybe in a table format), but this is no criteria for deletion. Eklipse (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tris2000 and El monty's solid arguments convinced me. Withdrawing nomination. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Wisdom Foundation

Non-notable foundation, has 19 Google hits. Deprodded. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for A7: no assertion of notability unless someone comes up with a claim that this charity is doing something more special than all the other locally targeted charities. --Closeapple (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevy T

Contested prod. Lots of fluff, no notability. His only claims of notability do not check out: his record label, Nfinity Worldwide[14] and his upcoming reality show[15]. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Per WP:BIO, this person has not been the subject of reliable, independent published secondary source material, has not received or been nominated for a notable award or honour. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity/promotional page - looks like another "up and coming" star Mayalld (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is questionable, but was mentioned on Hollywood Insider/Network TV. I disagree for deletion as per WP:BIO "Significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." and "Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular." Even though "fame" is relative, this person is well known in the underground party scene of many US cities. I have no affiliation with the source but wrote the article through research after reading his interview in April 2008 LA WeeklyUser 414141 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless a source can be found for his TV show; I couldn't find any, myself. GlassCobra 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporations by market capitalization on 30th March 2007

Contested prod. Way too specific a list. It is absolutely unclear why the market capitalization at one specific date would warrant an article (and why this date and not one of the countless others). The market capitalization corporations had on March 30th 2007 isnot a specific subject of study, so this list fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very specific criteria, but is just a rehash of a Financial Times article and so is probably a WP:COPYVIO. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of facts. WillOakland (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
retitle and keep The arbitrary date was probably chosen because of the sources, but it was not a wise idea. a list of companies by market capitalisation is a highly appropriate topic for an article.

Indeed, but we already have List of corporations by market capitalization, so there is no need for a second one. Fram (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP does not have to include every bit of useful information. That is what the rest of the Internet is for. I am sure there are sites that keep track of this data. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page was created as fork to List of corporations by_market capitalization#2007 first quarter to keep article in reasonable size and create more complete list (notice that all 200 listed companies has its own wikiarticles). If it will be deleted, content will be merged back to article. List is specific subject of study at least as FT 500. For suspected copyright problems, see List of billionaires (2007) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 April 15/Articles or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 14#List of billionaires (2005). --Jklamo (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LIST, as mentioned by WillOakland. GlassCobra 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpunch (book)

Article does not assert notability. As an aside, the article has also been unreferenced since November 2007 -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but obviously fix. If it is accurate, it has info of historical importance and should not be dissed with "does not assert notability". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparent original research. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supporters of the World War II period

This appears to be an entirely random (and unreferenced) list of people with some connection to the Japanese side of the Pacific War. There is no criteria for individuals to be included on the list, and its membership ranges from the Emperor of Manchuria to very low-ranking Japanese officers (including platoon commanders!) to the "owner and director of the Mexican newspaper "Hoy", [who] visited Japan, and nearby areas" and a British officer who aparantly "spoke in favour of well perspectives in the Mukden Incident". As such, it should be deleted as it is a clear example of an indiscriminate collection of information and the underlying concept behind it is so vauge that it can't be turned into a meaningful classification. Please note that this article was nominated for deletion under an earlier name in 2005, but survived. The result of that discussion seemed to be delete rather than keep, however, and our standards are generally now much higher than they were back then. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively gibberish, I'm amazed it survived this long. Some parts of the list might fit elsewhere, but as it exists this is totally indiscriminate, non-sensical and pretty POV to boot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be no strict criteria for adding entries to this list. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ironically, someone was removed from this list in November with the edit summary "no confirmation". Unlike the rest of the entries... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that really made me chuckle. I'm normally quick to pick up on lack of references in AfDs so quite how I missed the fact that not one of the 367 entries in that list had even a single citation I'll never know! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless list going nowhere fast. Blueboy 96 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jackyd101. i'm amazed this article is still alive after this long. Elements of the list could be incorporated elsewhere, but the list itself is very redundant and completely unecessary. Cam (Chat) 06:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks like the reason it's lasted this long is because nothing links to it. GlassCobra 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC
Delete - lack of defined criteria + lack of references + impossible to be comprehensive = delete. U$er (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing was provided to prove that the term itself is notable, only used. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated supervision

Insufficient context, dicdef, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SPAM. Appears to have no intent but to promote the subject. It might be an organisation, but it might be dicdef. Insufficient context to make it clear; fails WP:Context, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS and possibly WP:DICDEF. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PeterSymonds --Numyht (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G11 — blatant spam. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - seems to be a legitimate business term that describes a unique phenomenon (thus not dicdef) that isn't covered elsewhere here. See [16] and [17]. There's useful content here, even if uncited and incomplete. Obviously not spam so those !votes are impertinent - it's not advertising anybody's theory, business, service, etc., and the term is one for a government-mandated banking practice, not for an organization or company. Wikidemo (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article lacks application of MoS and context, it is obviously (in light of the sources provided by Wikidemo) a verifiable term; however the prose completely fails to explain the subject, and how it differs from financial supervision, of which it seems to claim itself a seed of. The most perplex issue here is how anyone could accuse this of spam; I hope some of those using the term could elaborate—unless they have completely misunderstood and though the article was about an organization rather than a business term, which would be rather alarming. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:22, 2 July 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 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as recommended above on the basis of links substantiating the use of the term. I'd also observe that there doesn't seem to be any indicia of spam/advertising in the article, so I'm not sure what that objection originated in. Pop Secret (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve because it doesn't look like spam to me, although the article lacks context and is simply quite bad as is. Niczar ⏎ 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personal essay that doesn't explain what the subject actually is (no context). Proper citation and sourcing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for acceptability of an article under WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. It might be better to scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hype man

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or directory for "hype men". JBsupreme (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a dictionary. I'm sure its use is common (i have heard it used to describe Flavor Flav's role in Public Enemy and Mark Berry's role in the rock band Happy Mondays), but this isn't the right place for it. All the page consists of is a definition and a list of famous hype men. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a dictionary or directory. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Blueboy 96 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring em on

An article about a Neologismm at the very least belongs on Wikiquote, not here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does seem to have made the news quite a bit. Kevin (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thousands of people are dead because of those three words, which I believe makes the phrase notable by Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Millions are dead because of "Heil Hitler", and it only warrants a redirect... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with a redirect. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are several ghits in google books [18], but google search does not prove notability. True Iraq War was wrong, worse than Nazi aggression in Poland, and for establishing American hegemony, and this is the majority public opinion, but that is not a reason for keeping this article. I can't say if this term has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources or not, so neutral. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"worse than Nazi aggression in Poland" Wat. I'm no fan of the war but that is a bold claim. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may warrant an article at Wikiquote, it isn't deserving here. I say delete or at least redirect to Bush or the War in Iraq. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-4-2008 • 05:35:44 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning to merge somewhere. I immediately associated Bush and the Iraq War when I read the title of this AfD, although I am not American and am not interested in politics, so that's how far notability goes. But it's still just a throw-away comment which doesn't seem to be able to go beyond a dict-def to support its own article (yet). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yamakiri. This doesn't have the same weight as We shall fight on the beaches or Peace for our time. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this simply doesn't require more than a redirect and maybe a move to wikiquote. Vizjim (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another borderline useless article from JeanLatore (talk · contribs) used to waste other editors' time at unnecessary AfDs. See his contribs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and {{soft redirect}} to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#2003. The quote is already there, no need to transwiki.~~ davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC). Updated 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC): With the Han Solo reference posted down below, change this to "just plain delete." It is possible to write a decent article about the history of this phrase in the English language including notable uses and their impact on the culture at the time and on posterity, but it would be better to WP:STARTOVER from scratch than to salvage this article. Redirecting it to any particular use would be inappropriate. Alternatively, a multiple-soft-redirect to all uses in WikiQuote would be plausible, but unless the list is sufficiently complete, we are better off with nothing in the English Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism with no reliable sources to show its significance. Aside from political punditry & comedy shows, it really hasn't gone anywhere. Bush has much more memorable quotes (Mission Accomplished is a much better example). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & soft redirect to wikiquote article per davidwr. This seems to be the most sensible suggestion, and will direct readers who are looking for this quote to the most likely place where they want to be i.e. a collection of quotes made by Bush, particularly regarding the Iraq War. Zun aid ©® 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is Wikiquote material. WillOakland (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a merge. This phrase is far too generic, and has been employed as a stock phrase in an endless variety of political rhetoric, popular entertainment, and casual conversation for the last century. I can't imagine this one use ought to take ultimate precedence. Dcoetzee 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bushism. Powers ^T 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dcoetzee. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and soft redirect, per davidwr. It's wikiquote material. Enigma ^message 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really article material. Either redirect per LtPowers and/or send to Wikiquote. JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more notable as a line by Han Solo, and that would be stretching. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic American British

of questionable notability and entirely unsourced. (many of these diaspora article pages need to be merged and, made into lists, or both - let the ones that are notable be pages focused on info on migration(s) and the reasons for it/them) Mayumashu (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless considerably better-sourced and demonstration given that these people self-identify this way. Vizjim (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources, and none are provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Idem for me. DutchDevil (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need an article about Norwegian Irish Australian Finnish Scots first... --Candy-Panda (talk)
Delete No reliable sources to establish this article's notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hispanic American British? What the heck?! I never heard that before. I beleve these people are just referred as American British, since they are American born. Its like I create an article for myself, that would be "Spanish/German/Croatian/Italian Chilean/Argentine American". Lehoiberri (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Randall-Young

Non-notable, standard work for a psychologist, self-penned article, books are self-published Step hen 03:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a self-published article, with self-published sources, about her self-published books --T-rex 03:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No big, independent sources to establish her notability. Reads like self-advertisement. -- The_socialist ^talk? 05:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The socialist. Black ngold29 06:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and for including the nauseating phrase "encouraging others to blossom into the wholeness and uniqueness of their being"! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She bridges the worlds of self and spirituality, body, mind and soul. According to herself. Niczar ⏎ 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page Edited to Address Concerns Please note page was updated with references and more details.--Gwen et al (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per blatant COI. --Winger84 (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent evidence of notability outside of COI self-promotion. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note similar Wikipedia page that wasn't deleted. Glenn Harrold is a hypnotherapist and has a similar page layout. Not the most perfect example, yet this page was not deleted. User:Gwen et al--Gwen et al (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of reputable Newspapers/Magazines regularly publishing her columns shows notability.--Gwen et al (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single blinking one of said newspapers and magazines has its own Wikipedia article at present. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated. Newspapers and magazines now referenced to where they are mentioned in Wikipedia.--Gwen et al--Gwen et al (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an obvious hoax. Blueboy 96 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tandy Tenure

Probable WP:HOAX violation. A "proposed" scientific theory with zero hits on Google, zero hits on Google Scholar, and zero hits on either for its putative creator ... and where, despite some turgid science-speak, no details of the theory are actually presented. Fails WP:V, WP:N, and probably WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT as well. Possibly it's no surprise that the creator of the article is a SPA with no other edits. RGTraynor 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pseudoscientific prattle with no actual content. JuJube (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vacuous bullshit. -- The_socialist ^talk? 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above; i'd initially CSD'ed it. Ironho lds 08:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just seeing the phrase "proposed theory" caused my brain to switch immediately into "Delete! Remove! Eradicate!" mode. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so is the policy here if its not on google then delete it. i think people are better off using books instead of computers myself. google is for the masses while books are for governers & creators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.77 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case the policy can be summed up with, we're deleting it because it's B.S. JuJube (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is a crystal ball violation at this time. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Kaguya (ship)

Mooted cruise ship that has not even been ordered yet, let alone construction began, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL. RGTraynor 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - until construction actually begins, I'm afraid this fails per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 03:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Properly sourced and verifiable. This is not speculation. WP:CRYSTAL says: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. The largest cruise ship ever to be built is notable, and planning is well-documented. --DAJF (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Almost certain to take place," when you're talking about a ship, isn't "we're drawing up blueprints." The keel hasn't even been laid yet. Upon a bit of research, I see some buzz on some websites, but the only reference from anything close to reliable is from a Lloyd's-related blog which turns up the less than convincing "A NEW cruiseship giant could be in operation by 2012 if detailed negotiations on a massive financial package now under way is finalised by the end of this year." RGTraynor 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that say that construction has to have started before an article can be written? Cruise ships are not my area of expertise, but there is certainly no problem with articles about planned buildings and trains provided they are well documented as per WP:CRYSTAL, so I am interested to know why the rules are different for this planned cruise ship, especially when it is notable in claiming to be the largest in the world. --DAJF (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the "well-documented" part (which this isn't), WP:CRYSTAL's chief point is that there's a wide gap between speculation and reality. I wouldn't myself consider a supergiant cruise ship a terrific economic bet when the price of diesel has doubled in the last year alone, and it's telling that the only sources extant suggest that the financing to built this hasn't even come together yet. This isn't yet a "planned" cruise ship. This is something a cruise company wants to build, and when they put a keel down, we can talk then about an article. RGTraynor 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice at recreation if and when the vessel is actually built. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we treat films as WP:CRYSTAL before principal production begins, then we can probably treat ships as WP:CRYSTAL before the keel is laid. Exceptions exist, of course, but the sourcing would have to support making such an exception. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Contracts for the construction of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers did not start being awarded until earlier this year. The idea that the 'keel must be laid before a ship can be considered worthy of an article' is not necessarily true, and we have featured articles on ships that were never completed (USS Illinois (BB-65)), and comprehensive ones on others that did not get past the drawing board (CVA-01). A closer look at the sources, and their validity, is needed rather than making our own guesses as to how likely we personally feel this project is to come off. Benea (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That's a great point. I think that is part of what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. In the case of ships, we can make a claim that the further away from construction they are, the better sourcing we might need. For instance, if this ship were ferrying passengers around right now, we would probably not ask for more than a 1 pager from the company describing dimensions and one or two minor references in trade publications or newspapers. But if it is 5-6 years off, then we might have to ask ourselves if the speculative nature of the subject demands further sourcing. At the very least, if we had sourcing about the construction itself we could write about that. I think that is where most of the military construction sourcing comes from. A large chunk of public funds go to pay for new ships, so there is some public interest (and hence news interest) in the subject. Those sources were discussing (by and large) the construction as a project, rather than the ship itself. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think on balance. There is too much coming from just one source, the company that is floating (no pun intended) this idea. If things start to take off, ie financing is sorted, concrete plans are drawn up, etc then there'll be enough to write an solid article on. Benea (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Violation of CRYSTAL; the keel hasn't even been laid yet. No prejudice towards recreation once construction actually starts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the beginning of construction should be taken as the "notability start date" for good reasons given above. We should really base that starting point as the point at which, if nothing materialises, the article would still be notable. At the moment, if nothing more happens and this just becomes another "pie on the seas" idea (yuck, soggy!) then I can't see that a Wikipedia article is needed so I'm happy to go with delete without prejudice to recreation at a suitable time. However, for a private vessel, the date of ordering seems a better time than the beginning of construction - even if the project goes wrong after that point, it's still a notable project, and the reason for the failure to complete an order (the emergence of major engineering or financial issues?) would likely only add to notability, whereas as it currently stands the reasons for the failure of a company's internal project proposal to result in an order would not be particularly notable to the world at large. For proposed military vessels which form part of long-term naval strategic planning, and where a significant amount of government resources have been put into developing specifications, I think the time that notability begins is likely to be the point when planning has become somewhat concrete (to the extent that there is enough meaningful material to write an article, even if it is somewhat generic) which may be long before ordering begins. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 13:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kfir ziv

Non-notable artist, 101 G-hits [19], led by his webpage, his Myspace page, his Facebook page, his Linkedin page, his Flickr page, his blog page and his studio page. (Seriously.) Missing from the tally, however, are any reliable sources, or any claims of notability save for one of being the lead photographer for the IDF weekly magazine, which is unsourced and doesn't turn up any hits on the IDF English-language website. Fails WP:BIO. RGTraynor 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Leonard^(Bloom) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried Google news search and only got one obscure promotional item. He seems to be a very competent commercial photographer (though I find his portfolio somewhat sterile) but that's not the same as being notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (happy to userfy on request) nancy ^(talk) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Happens (film)

Clearly vanity. See also Dane Bowling. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I couldn't find any references in reliable sources for this movie. --Eastmain (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{hangon}}'The IMDB page will be up within a week. The short is actually also part of MGM's rerelease dvd/bluray, which we are awaiting final approval on before we mention that bit (The 20th anniversary is 2010, which is when they assume it to be released as a packaged item). It's a WGA-registered, truly officially official real deal positively non-vanity actual short film with a legit backing. --popstar17-popstar17
- Do you have any sources to support your claims and/or the content of the article (for example news or magazine articles, professional reviews, or significant mentions in books) that could be used to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources? So far, the only fact of the article that is WP:verifiable is that the film came second in a fan-film competition...the other source used in the article does not appear to mention this film. -- saberwyn 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest userfication and deletion from mainspace of "Seth Happens", allowing the author (User:Popstar17) to continue to improve the article until such a time as it meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline. The article on the fan film's director should either be merged or redirected into the film article, or deleted as a WP:biography of a living person, who is 'famous' for a single event, that does not contain multiple reliable sources. -- saberwyn 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Even if an IMDb page appears, IMDb is not really a reliable source. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but userfy, and delete Dane Bowling. If it does exist, it hasn't won any prizes and is not a short by a notable director (even Atom Egoyan doe not have his shorts with wiki pages). Imdb is not RS, so an imdb entry is not a reason to keep either in the mainspace, otherwise we end up as a mirror of imdb. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. Simply self-promotion; user admitted that he's also getting the film up on IMDB. --Madchester (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Bowling

Clearly vanity. See also Seth Happens (film). Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gutterball for Mr. Bowling's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ecoleetage. Black ngold29 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the fan film's director should either be merged or redirected into the film article, or deleted as a WP:biography of a living person, who is 'famous' for a single event, that does not contain multiple reliable sources. -- saberwyn 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC) copied by saberwyn from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Happens (film). -- saberwyn 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY#A7 - "An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ecoleetage. Gutterball indeed. GlassCobra 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G4. The article was essentially a cut-and-paste of the text at Funny People. Obvious intent to evade the deletion debate. Blueboy 96 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny People (film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines; no prejudice towards recreation once shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funny People --T-rex 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Nyttend, as G4: Recreation of deleted material: Only differences from previous edition were some spelling corrections. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Fire (band)

AfDs for this article:

I'm contesting the A7 here. This page seems a bit too detailed for an A7 in my opinion, and it contains very vague assertations so I feel A7 is a stretch. Still fails WP:MUSIC tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A page with the same name was deleted on June 26. Is this a G4? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hard to judge this article for notability without any sources. It's certainly not the best-written article in the 'pedia, but it's far from the worst either. Frank | talk 01:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (vandalism) by PeterSymonds. Non administrative closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Rhodes ('Dusty')

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Rhodes ('Dusty')

I came across this page a while ago, but only just today decided that I should try to move it to a more appropriate disambiguation. To do that effectively, however, I needed to get more information so that I could place an accurate qualifier within the brackets. I'm going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line once again for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "George Rhodes" or "Dusty Rhodes" that has any of the traits claimed by this article, nor can I even find his book "Under the Oak Tree." If someone can provide sources, I might withdraw the nomination because he does seem to have at least some claim to notability (if he is indeed real), but I am not entirely certain that even that is strong enough. It also occurred to me that this may be a real person who was a relative of the original creator, but is otherwise non-notable, hence the reference to the book as being a "personal history". Cheers, CP 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I could not find an entry for Under the Oak Tree by this author at the British Library or Library of Congress. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by PeterSymonds . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Arocho

Advertising of one self, no notability, no sources, BLP Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Bloody Apes (album)

This album was never released and I don't believe it to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per the "Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists" source --T-rex 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 00:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discogs.com isn't a very good source, and there don't seem to be any other real sources to speak of. The one non-web source seems okay, but it's just one source. Given that it was unreleased, it doesn't seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Admittedly I'm not familiar with the Ego Trip source, but an unreleased album seems to fall short of standards. Also, things like "then less-notorious rapper Notorious B.I.G." don't give the best impression. GlassCobra 20:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Davidson

Subject is indeed an actress as this IMDB link here shows but it doesn't establish her notability. Appears to be a minor actress with only 1 appearance in This X Show and General Hospital and a small handful of movies. Being a contestant for 'the next Elvira' doesn't make one notable. Article may be created by a fan Artene50 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actress in major movies. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fail to see it, which film is major? — chan dler — 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable or significant roles in her ten year career. Doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 00:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Brewcrewer. iced kola^(Mmm...) 05:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per Brewcrewer. No reliable sources given at all. Black ngold29 06:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Book of the Kings

Recommending deletion. The article subject is nonnotable, and doesn't claim notability. Per the article "This album was released in very limited quantities, being, about 500 were made. ... However, The Funeral Pyre's song on this album can be heard on their MySpace." If CSD A7 covered albums, this would probably be a speedy delete. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:RS. The third reference appears to be a forum site--not a reliable source. Artene50 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 500 copies suggests lack of notability. Also recommend a redirect to Books of Kings --T-rex 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To Sludge City

Recommending deletion as non-notable. This is an album by a band (Annotations Of An Autopsy) whose article was speedied under CSD A7, released by a small non-notable label. Neither the band nor the label have articles, but speedy deletion for the album was declined because CSD A7 doesn't cover albums. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn; plenty of web hits but only one via news: [20]. JJL (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources given in article. Black ngold29 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable album by a non-notable, red link band. Fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should've prod'ded it. tomasz. 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion log of Annotations Of An Autopsy, which shows more than one deletion, I felt AfD was the way to go. With AfD, it will stay deleted upon recreation, thanks to CSD G4. With PROD, recreation is contesting the prod, and we'd get to do this all over again. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy-d is not applicable. — _Maggot^Syn 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearforce 1

Procedural listing. Article was speedily deleted as CSD A7. This was overturned on Deletion Review because an assertion of importance (albeit weak) was made. Unclear if article meets WP:BAND. Some sources may be available in Dutch as cited in the course of the DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - "popular amongst many blogs" is not a claim of notability. --T-rex 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few good sources have now turned up --T-rex 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1 – The band has received plenty of coverage (in languagues other than English mostly; need some translation action here) and even a mention in The Washington Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be willing to expand on that? See WP:JNN. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T-rex, I am afraid I'm not seeing the notability required by WP:MUSIC, only trivial mentions. JBsupreme (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial", according to WP:MUSIC, means something akin to a directory listing. This article in the Trouw is not trivial. This article in De Pers is not trivial. This one in De Telegraaf is not trivial. This one in Sp!ts is not trivial. There's this article from the Spanish newspaper Córdoba. The Washington Post article is brief, but it's non-trivial. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in which case I stand corrected. Switching to KEEP in light of the references provided directly above. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to scrape by, though I'm not sure about the appropriateness or encyclopedic value of the quote from the Washington Post. GlassCobra 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G11, blatant advertising however, to stem any recreation, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky Wucky

Subject is not notable, article contains a lot of advertisement of non-notable subjects, article is unsourced, maybe even a hoax. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:CBALL, WP:BALLS, WP:MADEUP--take your pick. It's horribly written to boot, and the author is a vandal. Blueboy 96 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboy, I'm surprised to see such a bad WP:BITE violation from such an experienced user. It seems to be the main comment that the poster objects to as well. I take it you misread something and spoke (typed) too hastily. Could you possibly try and patch things up with the user in question? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just saw that an article with the same name had been speedied once before. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ADVERT for a NN product. Possibly a made up hoax. Recreation of previously speedy deleted material. also I suggest some salt on this to prevent recreation. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 doesn't apply when the previous article has been speedied, but as I mentioned earlier this could easily be WP:NFT-able. Blueboy 96 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by a message on the creator's talk page dated 26 June. And I never said that this was a speedy, just a delete and a salt for prevention of further creation as the user had done so before. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The game is for sale on ebay, but that's the only non-wiki ghit, including gnews. WP:COI issues lead me to believe this is an advert, and probably eligible for a G11 speedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per... well, all of the above... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HOAX, WP:POINT, WP:N, WP:COATRACK, WP:SNOW, WP:CBALL, and WP:V. Also an obivous attempt at vandalsim. It deserves to be deleteed. Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Smith Jones. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps should have been speedied as spam. The topic certainly not notable in any way. S. Dean Jameson 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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