Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 28

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

The result was delete. -

Asbed

Asbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should belong in Wikidictionary. A tag was already here proposing a move to the Wikidictionary, and the article itself should be deleted from Wikipedia.

• Delete - already Transwikied. B.Wind 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Does {{
  chat edits 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above and
  WP:WINAD. MER-C 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. I note that there is a db-transwiki, but that doesn't seem to apply here. --Dennisthe2 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Dan Zygyroyd

Dan Zygyroyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be a wrestler, but the only reference there doesn't seem to prove the subject's notability. Peter O. (Talk) 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rumors" of making it to a national wrestling promotion is insufficient to establish notability of this local wrestler. Delete. B.Wind 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom. There are rumours this article will be deleted. Anyone else care to clarify these rumours for me?? Spawn Man 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Creator tried to remove AfD notice. MER-C 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as total nonsense. This guy doesn't exist and neither does his promotion(0 Ghits for both, not even anything from Myspace or OWW). The link for CWL goes to the airport in Cardiff, Wales.
• Delete due to complete lack of notability. RampageouS 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile drive Complete hoax. 6'11'' GM of an airport, trained in wrestling by Corky? Love those wikilinks, btw. Wavy G 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everyone who declares him vastly unnotable. Chris Buckey 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirected to

The Slayer

The Slayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another article about a perhaps obscure wrestler. Peter O. (Talk) 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another wrestler who has (apparently) yet to go beyond the local promotions; therefore too obscure for Wikipedia. Delete. B.Wind 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Chokeslam-Delete - As per nom. It's down for the count... 10... 9... Argh, sod it, delete it already... Spawn Man 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:BIO. MER-C 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Buffy Summers. Otto4711 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Otto, very good proposal. Xtifr _tälk 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Change to per Danny (below), even better. Xtifr _tälk 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fickle. Otto4711 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ummm... What does a wrestler have to do with Buffy?? My brain hurts, as it where would you put it in the Buffy article?? We can't put it in the trivia section as we don't know that this wrestler is named after her... Spawn Man 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about a merge, silly! :) Xtifr _tälk 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake... :) Spawn Man 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with Buffy, it's just a man who "slays" a lot I guess. 71.135.164.142 04:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was You asked for speedy, you got a speedy. Tawker 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh beef

Oh beef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable and unreferenced neologism, disputed prod. Seraphimblade 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete this qualifies as a speedy deletion candidate.
  es2221 02:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete First, Wikipedia is not a street dictionary or idiom reference. Second, why did he or she even bother contesting the prod?
  Diez2 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete nonsense. B.Wind 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Oh Beef! We just speedied your article!" - Obviously a delete from me. Spawn Man 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Danny Lilithborne 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete — Definitely nonsense. Perhaps
  WP:BJAODN. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per above. MER-C 03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Artista

Artista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability and no verification. This is a group of cartoonists that did what? The world may never know. Also, there is no sources to verify this article, so it should be deleted.

• Delete No hits on Google.
  es2221 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - C'mon, how can you not know "the gang"??? Everyone knows that they, ummm... drew the comic... ummmm... Okay, I don't know. Spawn Man 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely unverifiable. --
  chat edits 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  Danny Lilithborne 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Delete per nom - no notability, no verification. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom. --
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; notability on Wikipedia requires independent non-trivial third-party sources ("this number is big" is not sufficient), and none have been presented. This AfD does not prejudice against recreation with reference to such sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoStor magazine

InfoStor magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 21:35Z

• Delete, notability not asserted. Demiurge 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is a difference between an article needing to be deleted and an article needing to be expanded. This article is one that needs to be expanded.
  Diez2 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is an orphan article, and articles are generally orphaned for a reason. I don't see anything indicating that the subject meets
  WP:CORP. Delete B.Wind 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Jeesh, I thought article was gonna be about something boring like cupboards or something. Then I find it's about data storage which is 10 times worse!! Argh! NN & possibly self promoting. Spawn Man 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt's a notable newsletter in its industry.DGG 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some info to the article. It has 39,000 subscribers, which is high for a relatively specialized industry magazine of this sort. It is reachable by at least 3 different online newsletter services. There are about 120,000 links in Google to articles or product reviews published there. It has been published continuously since 1997, rather long for such a publication. I would be a little absurd for a technically-oriented encyclopedia like WP not to carry it, because some of those voting thought it was about furniture. As now revised it is not self-promoting. There's a difference between commercial spam , and real notable commercial products. DGG 07:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Delete. No assertions of notability whatsoever. Not even one reliable, third-party source. -- Satori Son 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) While I strongly disagree with DGG's assertion that Wikipedia is a "technically-oriented encyclopedia", this article does now have a minimum assertion of notability. It still needs better third-party references, but it looks like they do exist as well. -- Satori Son 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There are no assertions of notability, and there isn't even a statistic of how many readers read this magazine. "More can be found at website name" smacks of advertising as well. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep 39,000 subscribers qualifies as notable in my opinion. Needs citation. Scienter 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small town has 39,000 readers. Now a magazine in my country has over 1 mill readers, yet on here even that would seem as NN... As Kungming said, it smacks of advertising... Spawn Man 08:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; notability on Wikipedia requires independent non-trivial third-party sources ("this number is big" is not sufficient), and none have been presented. This AfD does not prejudice against recreation with reference to such sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Magazine

Storage Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Storage Magazine, a storage magazine. Nominating this to be fair to InfoStor magazine (AfD discussion). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 21:36Z

• Delete, notability not asserted. Demiurge 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is a difference between an article needing to be deleted and an article needing to be expanded. This article is one that needs to be expanded.
  Diez2 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very Weak Keep Diez2 said it right. Yankee Rajput 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per above. JRP 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Jeesh, I thought article was gonna be about something boring like cupboards or something. Then I find it's about data storage which is 10 times worse!! Argh! NN & possibly self promoting. Spawn Man 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't have notability criteria for publications, but it appears to be in publication since 2002 and seems to be a professional commercial endeavour, so it will probably do. Sandstein 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll change to a Keep when it can be demonstrated that more than a handful of people subscribe to this journal. Scienter 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep They claim 20,000 on their page for advertisers, but not as well established as IS.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (For those who are wondering, notable enough for one Wikipedia is indeed notable enough for all.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Demirer

Ata Demirer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completely and utterly fails

• Keep - Google hits are misleading here as the ATV Turkey site is in Turkish. I'd be leery of deleting this article without first hearing from natives of Turkey. If the show is as popular as the articles indicate, then the subject would meet
  WP:BIO. B.Wind 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - Just a hunch here. Yankee Rajput 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nom suggests that being best known for role on
  WP:BIO, "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --Oakshade 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Terribly short, yes. But we can't delete this based on an English Google search. We need Turkish input.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or am I missing something here? If this person is well known in the Turkish entertainment industry then an article in the Turkish Wiktionary is a given. No article in the English Wikipedia is required unless the subject becomes notable in the English speaking entertainment industry or becomes newsworthy outside of Turkey. LittleOldMe 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the fact that the "English" in "English Wikipedia" solely means that its articles are written in the English language. Forcing a language requirement into our
    systemic bias. Uncle G 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • UncleG is right. English is only the language and has nothing to do with the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But needs obvious development. Linuxaurus 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as {{

Peter Mitchell (illustrator)

Peter Mitchell (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist.

• Speedy delete vanity page - originator appears to be Peter Mitchell himself. B.Wind 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete vain vanity in vain.
  Danny Lilithborne 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - csd a7. So tagged. MER-C 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Aly & AJ videography

Aly & AJ videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure how this is even an article. At the very least violates

• Delete - the faster, the better - Wikipedia is
  NOT your personal photo housing! B.Wind 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• BALLETE! BALLETE! (delete) --
  chat edits 02:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete page and all related images Wikipedia is
  Danny Lilithborne 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fair use gallery. Don't forget to nuke the related images. MER-C 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Wow. Can we say
  Diez2 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - as above --tgheretford (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pictures of music videos? Come on. PS: Who the hell are Aly and AJ? Wavy G 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wavy: They're jailbait fantasy-fodder for homeschooled preteen males. Caknuck 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons. Caknuck 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons doesn't accept unfree images. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't possibly count as fair use. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was for the article to die. -

Live Or Die

Live Or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deprodded so sending here. While there are lots of reports that

• Until there is official confirmation, delete - discussion boards are not
  reliable sources. B.Wind 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - You HAVE to be kidding me. There is no way I can see
  Blackjays 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:CRYSTAL Scienter 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I just found a link confirming that this isn't even the name of his new album! [3] It will be called "I Can't Stay Away".
  Blackjays 00:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as per
  WP:CRYSTAL. --SonicChao ^talk 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Turkish revenge

Turkish revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN neologism/ancient movie quote. ghits: [4] NMChico24 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poorly written, UE, NN, Unsourced, Few Ghits, OR, what else could be a more suitable candidate for deletion?? Spawn Man 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Err.... Do we need an article on ways to stab people in the buns? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced,
  neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no-one claiming that Utcursch's research isn't sufficient to show notability (Diez2's claim isn't consistent with the number and breadth of sources cited). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian School of Business

Asian School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails

• Delete — Reads like self-promotion, very low hits on Google. Possible advertisement. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks genuine, but it's a new start-up with little visibility or notability. It doesn't seem to be accredited yet: I'm ready to change my mind to keep if it is one of the first in India to gain international accreditation, like
  AACSB.--Mereda 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ::[reply
  ]
• Comment. It is not a primary/secondary school -- it is a management institute. I am not sure about the accredition or recognition. But the institute received wide press coverage in major Indian newspapers including The Hindu[5][6][7] and The Times of India[8]. Also [9][10][11] utcursch | talk 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The school meets WP:SCHOOL requirements. Specifically: "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself." This is shown by the newspaper articles cited by User:Utcursch.These alone are enough to make it notable.CraigMonroe 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Diez2 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Go back and look. He cited eight articles. None of which were the school's website. 4 were from newspapers in India, and one was from Yahoo news. The others were from various news sources. None were the school's website. Wouldn't this be multiple sources? 67.162.212.254 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- please review the
  speedy keep criteria- the nominator has not withdrawn the vote, there have been delete votes, the nomination is not clear vandalism, it is in the correct process, the nominator is not banned, and the article is neither a guideline nor linked to by the main page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• keep We are possibly being more stringent differently because not familiar. DGG 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- please review the
  speedy keep criteria- notability is not a qualifying reason for a speedy keep vote, and per above. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment This really isn't a "school", it's an unaccredited business college and that's a messy area. Counting the clippings isn't the only way to make a judgement. This new college only has 100(?) students and there's a concern about advertising this business for its ambitions, not its achievements. I looked at the press coverage and I wasn't convinced by it at first glance - it's launch publicity, it's uncritical, and it's not in-depth; though I accept that they include bylined items in serious newspapers. If we imagine the college closing today, would it be worth an encyclopedia article on any grounds?? (except comprehensive coverage of all business colleges in India!) Would it be notable in the enduring record of the field? --Mereda 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason I've not voted Keep yet. If it is accredited or recognized, I will vote Keep, but there is no indication of that. News coverage is mostly due to NRIs supporting the college. utcursch | talk 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the college has generated verifiable sources for itself, what difference does it make if it's an accredited school or not? Unaccredited schools make news too, and unaccredited schools can be notable too. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability or remarkability provided in the article or in a cursory search for information on the subject. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep especially per
  WP:CORP. Alansohn 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

weak keep almost full keep. The sources all seem to be more about what the school will be when built and don't have much in the way of detail. However, since the school is sourced in a wide geographic area and has enough data to write a decent size stub, I'm inclined to keep. (and if anyone cares, I think it passes criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS3). JoshuaZ 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Was this article rewritten recently? I only ask because the article I'm looking at passes WP:SCHOOLS with flying colors; well sourced, well written, and obviously notable to the surrounding community. Silensor 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mereda[12] and User:Alansohn[13] fixed it. 220.227.179.4 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is my view. CraigMonroe 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If anyone recognises my name from other school afds, they'd be stunned by my suggestion it be kept but this one actually deserves to be included. It needs many things added to it to make it an encyclopedia article and not an advertising run, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but all that said I think any (attempt at a) world class post-graduate school of management built for $3.6m in a developing country is notable. India has a veritable tsunami of schools of cautious notability outside of India but I don't think this is an example due to the hubub it caused. It's unaccredited but I imagine a lot of Indian schools don't have the same accreditation standards as schools in developed countries and generally across the world business colleges are less likely to be accredited then other similar institutions. Per a couple of comments by people about it being ambitious rather than established, I agree, but it's VERY ambitious. Consider if a plan was afoot and the groundwork laid for a 2000 storey tower made out of diamonds in Australia, it's not established rather ambitious, but boy is it ambitious! Therefore it'd be worthy of an article. I think this is the same sort of thing.•Elomis• 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily redirected. AFD is not the place to discuss mergers and once material is merged the history of the source article needs to be retained to comply with the

Doesn't seem notable. I merged it already into desk, but I have doubts if it should really be there either. Delete. Yankee Rajput 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A student desk is a stupid idea for an article. I have an old school desk, but I am niether a student nor am I at school. Therefore it looks like other desks. So what is a student desk? A desk for study? Do we need a study table or study chair too? Delete, & merge any, and I mean if any, info into desk. Spawn Man 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)comment[reply]
• Redirect - I don't think "merge and delete" is an option. The contribution history needs to be preserved. That said, the information is completely unsourced and a little arcane. shotwell 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why isn't it an option? Yankee Rajput 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shotwell said it already: If material is merged "the contribution history needs to be preserved." - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a distinct article of furniture sold to a distinctive market--'Desk" otherwise means office desk. It is so distinctive that people buy them as conversation pieces, a/c 3 comments up. DGG 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, close discussion. AfD is not a forum for discussing article mergers. That said, this brief and unsourced content seems to fit well on Desk. If it grows and is sourced, it can be spin off again. Otherwise, much of the content should probably be deleted as OR. Sandstein 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what's the difference from a normal desk and a student desk? Isn't it more or less the same than any other desks? As a student, we use a normal desk, not some special type of desk. --
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Escritoirecruft.--
  Folantin 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect. When material is merged, the edit history of the source material needs to be retained to be
  GFDL compliant. Deleting the article would mean there'd be no paper trace to find out who originally wrote the material which is key for verifiability and accountability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbe Land

Abbe Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable local politician. Fails to meet

Note to admin closing this AFD: This article previously passed a

WP:PROD and was deleted, then recreated. If this passes AFD, please restore the original history of the article. (The re-creator did not follow the prod-undelete process, just recreated from a cache.) JRP 02:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Is a candidate who gets trounced in a primary election considered notable? I don't think so. Delete. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• please remove page or lock the page, users wheoethics and jamesfurman are one and the same and hold a grudge against all west hollywood city councilmembers due to a land use decision, this is not the forum to air grudges and post innacurate and slanderous material, wehogatewayWehogateway 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. This also isn't a forum for personal attacks. JRP 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not quite accurate to say that the position of mayor of West Hollywood is a "non-elected" position. The mayor is elected by the city council. By tradition, the position generally rotates among the councilmembers, but this is only by consent of the council majority, not by automatic right. This is a common form of government in smaller California cities. —The preceding
  few or no other edits
  outside this topic.
• Strong Keep She was mayor of West Hollywood and is currently a councilperson there. These things make her notable. Here are a couple of Los Angeles Times articles on her [14] [15]--Oakshade 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete: only one editor making genuine arguments for keeping in this AfD, though not being very specific. There are two NME reviews documented here, and NME is undoubtedly a notable music publication. However, the article as it stands relies on nothing more than the subject's family to assert notability, and there's clear consensus here that that isn't sufficient. If anyone is able to create an article which asserts and

Muhammad Islam

Muhammad Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject hasn't done anything notable to be included in wiki Rarechords (talk · contribs)

Comment I finished the afd nom that Rarechords started. See this note on my talk page for a little background. I'll abstain from making a recommendation on this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I should've provided a link to the original afd for Yoriyos. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being the offspring of the former Cat Stevens is not sufficient notability for inclusion into Wikipedia. B.Wind 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Being the offspring of a famous musician is not enough to merit notability. Subject must be notable on his/her own. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete dittoTvoz 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my "delete" vote; apparently he has has some press and might fit "notability" requirement after all - I am researching this now. Name he records under is "Yoriyos". Request that you hold off on deletion.Tvoz 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Scienter 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ConDem^Talk 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete as he is also a musician who will release his first album soon (as stated in the links that were deledet by 82.69.43.155)... --84.192.156.78 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicians who have not yet released an album are often, I'm afraid, not considered notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). ConDem^Talk 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cat Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.19.54.164 (talk • contribs)
• Delete having a famous parent does not guarantee notability, plus he is already given mention in the Cat Stevens article. Great name, though. Biruitorul 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Screw you nerds. Yoriyos has an official website and album. Yes, he is Yusuf Islam's offspring, but as long as fictional Star Wars characters are deemed acceptable enough to warrant their own pages, Yoriyos should be allowed to stay. Incredible Jake 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need for that language Jake. Delete it. end of.

• • • • **** **** **** ****

See Amazon for Album shortly available

"Bury My Heart Wounded Knee" http://www.yoriyos.com/

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

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

The result was delete. -

Hotel Pontchartrain

Hotel Pontchartrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being considered for deletion because RaccoonFox is stealing quotes directly from Emporis.com, not rewording them, and not even citing his source, despite being asked to multiple times. Criticalthinker 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Wikilink takes us to Hotel Pontchartrain, which should be speedily deleted as void of content (except for "Hotel Pontchartrain"). The nominated article is Hotel Pontchartrain. B.Wind 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio from Emporis.com. B.Wind 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, A8. --
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: as is common with fictional characters, no consensus, particularly due to the confusion over exactly what fictional works the characters are limited to (apparently not just a computer game). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulder

Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Weak keep. They're not computer game characters, but rather fairly major characters in
  talk) 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Mention can be made at The Cleric Quintet. Eusebeus 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scienter 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be merged into the article The Cleric Quintet if a 3rd party ref describes them. My view is reading the primary source and and choosing which are the notable characters is OR.Obina 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article makes no assertion of notability. Wavy G 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They were primary charcters in
  Belwar Dissengulp have pages, shouldn't Ivan and Pikel? Mwsilvabreen 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep* Ivan and Pikel were in fact two of the main protagonists in the Cleric Quintet and deserve a page of their own. Other minor characters like like
  Icingdeath
  have a page.
• Changing to Keep Didn't understand from the wording, "Residents of R.A. Salvatores Forgotten Realms Universe" that these are characters from a book series. Intro paragraph could use a good cleanup and wikilinks (for instance, how about specifying, "fictional characters from the book series The Cleric Quintet"?), but now I see, from reading others' input here, that these are notable characters. Wavy G 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. You can make a mention of it on the school district, though. -

Briarwood Elementary School

Briarwood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a list of redlinks, and presumably none of them actually merit articles. Nominating for deletion per

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, for same reasonsDGG 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Non-notable elementary school, seems like an employee listing as Principal Schoolswatter stated. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn elementary school. Eusebeus 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are hundreds of schools on wikipedia. Does someone famous HAVE to be from each of them to make them notable? I cleaned up the article's silly redlinks. If you look at
  Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a developing community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If I'm not mistaken, there's never been a clear community consensus on keeping articles about schools of disputed notability; the articles are merely kept because "no consensus" in AFD discussions defaults to "keep". Extraordinary Machine 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that in the last few months deletion decison and redirects have become increasingly more common. As to what schools should satisfy, there are currently two proposals in play WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. As far as I can tell this would satisfy neither of them. JoshuaZ 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Florham Park School District. Whatever little content exists should be merged to the district article. Article makes no claim of notability for school, and no evidence was found in Google / Google News to support an ex post facto claim for this school. Consensus is that such articles should be the subject of a merge/redirect which preserves article history and allows for recreation of an expanded article in the event that additional information crops up that would justify a standalone article. Alansohn 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Jacob1207 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Alan. I'm not convinced that the minimal content justifies calling it a "merge" but there's no point in deleting the content when a redirect will serve just as well. However, I'm not sure there is anything worth merging. JoshuaZ 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or alternatively redirect. There's no "there" there. Shimeru 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability or remarkability at all demonstrated in article (which itself is significantly less than a stub). --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing here that resembles an assertion of notability. —
  fgs 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to the Florham Park School District page until it can stand on its own two feet. Silensor 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever. No reliable, third-party sources. There is no use waiting until
  Wikipedia is not a directory of primary schools, or anything else. -- Satori Son 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Au petit hotel

Au petit hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an orphaned article that has no notability. All I can get from this is that the Au Petit Hotel is owned by someone and built at sometime. This fails

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Hotel that makes no assertion of notability. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A hotel. At the end of a street. There are probably Monopoly hotels that are more notable than this. Wavy G 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Clear-cut case.
  DrKiernan 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -

RealClimate

RealClimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable blog ad with all references only pointing to the blog itself. --timecop 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Sure, what the hell. Yankee Rajput 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to meet
  WP:WEB with the two coverages in Nature and Science. MER-C 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Blogs are rarely notable, but this one is.DGG 04:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Award winning and coverage by two prestigious scientific journals. That's not remotely non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rare instance of a blog actually being more than simply non-notable. Eusebeus 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - widely-referenced in political debate on climate change. Sam Clark 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - care to give actual references or links? no, not links to other blogs that talk about this one. - Femmina 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blogs are never notable and this one is no exception. - Femmina 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, blogs can be notable, according to
    WP:WEB. One well-known example is Little Green Footballs. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Blogs can be notable, and this is a good example. The RealClimate keeps a list of references here which demonstrates that they are quoted in numerous (non-blog) sources. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the few influential and referenced blogs, a major party in the more public discussions about global warming and things like the "hockeystick controversy".
  Fram 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Pure crap. Worthless blog trash. (this comment was added by Amanduhh 03:13, 30 November 2006)
• Delete - A neutral article might not be okay, but this one is pure boosterism. Blogjack 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Narssarssuaq 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - if this article can be deleted following a coherent nomination based on a lack of

• Delete huh? wha? Yankee Rajput 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - that's not a reason for deletion. MER-C 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Given reason not valid. Not the best of articles now, but salvagable. If everything else fails it can be redirected to
  self-service software. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or at minimun merge per Mgm. The reason is this is just some OR describing a dicdif. And there are no sources. If this is more than a made up term, and has an encylopedic value, please provide

source.Obina 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Very badly written & almost un-understandable, but the remedy is to get it rewritten. DGG 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for procedural reasons. It's pure marketroid speak, so I can only guess that this is the reason for the deletion - and for what it's worth, the "online" world is pretty much "self service". --Dennisthe2 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is so nearly incomprehensible as written that I wouldn't dissent from an argument to delete it as nonsense. It seems to largely duplicate
  self-service software by the same editor, so I think a merge is best. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedyed. xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty01

Casualty01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed Speedy, delete per WP:BIO-- xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Hilary Duff videography

Hilary Duff videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another pop music videography page which barely constitutes an encyclopedia article. In addition, filled with YouTube links. See also deletion discussion for Aly & AJ videography. -- eo 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aly & AJ vote.
  Danny Lilithborne 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fair use gallery. Don't forget to nuke the images, too. MER-C 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Hilary Duff but without images. Duff's video career is hardly prolific enough to warrant a separate article. 23skidoo 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without the videos there really isn't much to merge. Koweja 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic delete - Youtube.com linkspam to the nth degree; one can also argue that the posted photos are not fair use and therefore violate copyright. B.Wind 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --

Sadly, No

Sadly, No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political blogshite. No references except to itself and other blogs. Does not fit any kind of notability criteria. Sadly, not notable. --timecop 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blog per nom. Eusebeus 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, vanity - Femmina 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak^{(Calbaer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC))} Delete if not significantly changed. Unsourced and unencyclopedic, but for all I know the blog might be notable in spite of its "small ... community" and lack of evidence in this article. Calbaer 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable ego masturbation. --Amanduhh 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: If the information in this article were sourced, would it then be worthy to keep? I just came upon the article today because I was wondering what the story is behind this site. I know Wikipedia doesn't want to become a blog directory, but doesn't a blog gain some notablility after it reaches a certain level in traffic or some other marker?--AmericanRonin 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -

WP:WEB). Properly sourced and written, Sadly, No! might be a valuable entry to Wikipedia. But right now it needs work to prove itself. In some sense it's kind of a shame that blogs need to go through such effort to prove themselves, so much so that the source text can be as much reference as explanation (in order to deflect random annoying AfDs). But, considering the arcane and novel nature of blogs, it's necessary in order to have a consistent policy all around. And Sadly, No! doesn't seem to meet it. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retain - Do Not Delete It is very important in the case of political blogs to be able to find third-party information on the people involved and the history of the blog. If we begin to pick and choose which political blog "qualifies" for a Wikipedia entry, we'd better be very careful about the political philosophies of the people recomending deletion. Why delete the Sadly,No entry and not, say, the Little Green Footballs entry? Where would it stop? Where should it stop? 70.89.67.161 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then you go to the said blog and click 'about' link. Ego-inflating 'about this blog' cruft can and should be kept local to the blog, and not in wikipedia. And LGF is big enough to be annoying and kept on wikipedia, where as Sadly, no is not. --timecop 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - There are notability guidelines at

WP:WEB. I personally think they're a bit too strict on blogs (versus, say, minor manga characters), but the Sadly, No! article really needs to have some sourcing as to its notability, and, frankly, it needs to be better-written. Right now, the article is poorly written and the blog comes off as some small humor blog that derives its humor and alleged notability off of starting "blog dust-ups" with more well-known blogs. It still might be notable — maybe it's the Ali G of the blogosphere — but, from the entry, I just can't see how. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Sadly, No! is a blog fairly frequently linked to by "top tier" blogs like Atrios, and is certainly a moderate-traffic player in the left-wing, um, blogosphere. The article information could use sourcing, and if that means sourcing it to their "About" page, well, that would be a start. Cromis 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - An "about" page is not a

reliable source. Links to media coverage, awarding organizations, news stories, well-established webpages/blogs, etc. are the kind of things I'd be looking for. (The last of these is not considered by some to establish notability, but I think that a blog being consistently mentioned — not merely linked to — by several top blogs is a pretty good indication of notability.) Calbaer 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

comment - Well, yeah, the sourcing is problematic. To me the notability is fairly clear - dozens of links from Atrios over at least 2 years, plenty of links from other sites; if you follow Atrios, you can't help but be familiar with it. It's a B-level political blog, of which there are many, but that doesn't make them all irrelevant or identical, any more than, say, local newspaper columnists. On the other hand, if there's nothing both interesting & verifiably sourced you can say about it, then notability doesn't matter so much. The problem I have is with comments indicating that it's obviously not notable because ... it's a blog? They don't know anything about it? They don't like it? Those aren't grounds for non-notability. Cromis 64.142.81.56 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - As for as I can tell, people aren't saying it's not notable because it's a blog, rather that it's a nonnotable blog. Not everyone has to fully explain their opinion on the topic in order to share their judgment. Calbaer 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep - Sadly, No! is a significant blog and deserving of an article. Krakatoa 07:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Timecop, the user who instituted this whole discussion, is waging a self-declared war on blogs; this is not a debate about the merits of this particular blog more than an attempt by an individual to impose his own standards on Wikipedia. Simply look around this site-- there are articles on minor anime characters, yet a blog with its own community and some political relevance (and it should be noted that I don't visit this site particularly often myself) doesn't warrant it's own page? It's completely arbitrary and contradictory. 61.132.71.55
  • Comment - Sadly, your whole comment is a personal attack, is based on a logical fallacy and does not discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article in question. In my opinion, the admin that will close this discussion should not consider you vote. - Femmina 10:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think it's a personal attack; either timecop is declaring "the war on blogs" or he has an elaborate satire claiming the same. That doesn't mean that Sadly, No! should be kept, but it does mean that we need to be very skeptical about his/her motives and arguments. Calbaer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Datablogging

Datablogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable concept. The only google hits are related to the reger.com company which apparaently 'created' this 'thing' and other similar blogspam / wikispam that they have published about it. no thanks. Deletion reason: spam, advertisement, non-notable. timecop 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly commercial spam DGG 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteblogging this, since it's a non-notable corporate neologism. MER-C 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blog. Eusebeus 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no hint at notablibily on the page. is a page about a blog. - Femmina 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an advertisement, wikipedia has a strong anti-advertisement policy. Delete this crap.
• Delete as per above. –– 30sman 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 fairly clear that the mentions in reliable sources are trivial, and getting 3% in an election doesn't give any other grounds for notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural. Deprodded. Concern was notability. -