Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 19 February 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World 4u

World 4u (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable manga Mr Senseless (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not seeing the slightest sign of import, impact, or notice -- but it's somewhat hard to tell, given that the artcile text looks like it was -- and I mean this literally -- machine-translated from the Japanese. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. One-shot manga. 39 hits in Google (keywords: World 4u and author's name). And this article needs urgent re-write. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No source. Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So far all I can find as a source is this.[1] However, one-shot manga are generally not notable unless they are created by a well known author/artist. I don't think that Tatsuma Ejiri (江尻立真), whose only other credit is P2! -let's Play Pingpong!-, falls into that category. Also, the "summary" section is unreadable gibberish. --Farix (Talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not seem to be a notable pair of short stories. No prejudice against recreating the article if it turns into a notable serial. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise or merge to Tatsuma Ejiri; this is a series of short stories, appearing irregularly; chapters of it appeared before and after P2. Not yet collected in a tankobon, however; until then it might be better on the author's page. Doceirias (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No sources, no notability. Rigby27 Talk 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and Redirect - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millersburg Elementary School

Millersburg Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable elementary school. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh & Garrett

AfDs for this article:
Josh & Garrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet to release an album, no assertion of notability 9Nak (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Seal Clubber (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:MUSIC. The article can be recreated if they become notable in the future. Bláthnaid 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by

BencherliteTalk 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Luminous. (band)

Luminous. (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiply recreated article under various spellings; the claims to have won two Grammy Awards are not borne out by the official site [2] and the other claims seem equally specious. Let's have this hoax gone once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The merger has been accomplished and the page redirected. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Paris Elementary School

New Paris Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable elementary school. No predijuce to redirecting to the district article if one exists. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge / redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyoscine-pentothal

AfDs for this article:
Hyoscine-pentothal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

I nominated this article for deletion back in November, and it still establishes not a shred of notability, and has no real references. The use of this fictional drug is already covered in the seasons articles, and doesn't warrant its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge- This article does not warrant it's own article whatsoever, the information can be found on 24 Wikia, has little value in this encyclopaedia. Should be merged or deleted. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect or weak delete I can perfectly see how someone hearing the drug's name wants to lookg it up on wikipedia because it may be a real drug. However, the article makes no claim of notability (and probably can't) and consists of a description of effects (i.e. original research). The article should therefore not exist, but this drug may receive a short mention in either 24_(TV_series)#Counter_Terrorist_Unit or List of fictional medicines and drugs (the latter of which barely survived a recent AfD). – sgeureka t•c 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is useful to correct any wrong ideas about real
    Hyoscine
    . About two points raised in the previous AfD:
    • "a fake truth serum": In the fictional world of the 24 story it is real and is (all too) effective. In the real world it is a "fictional truth serum", and Wikipedia has many entries for fictional drugs: see Category:Fictional drugs.
    • "is entirely duplicative": in the episode descriptions the information about hyoscine-pentothal is scattered mixed with much other matter and would have to be ferreted for; it is not collected together. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to address the core issue, notability, which the article does not address. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, we don't need an article on some "fictional pain-inducing drug". Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This type of artiles should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Hyoscine-pentothal occurs in the fictional world of 24 (TV series).) This article is not original research, it derives from what is said and shown in the "24" television series about it, and the "24" television series is the reference for it. It seems to be as notable as many fictional drugs described in Wikipedia. If it can't be kept, merge to 24 (TV series). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and most of those articles have references other than the television show itself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury real estate brokerage

Luxury real estate brokerage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef and OR. Can't see how this can ever be usefully expanded beyond a dicdef because of the regional variations, which is currently pure OR. Travellingcari (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not complete nonsense, but close to it. Dicdef,
    WP:COATRACK. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Club Moscow International

Rotary Club Moscow International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded before but the tag was removed. There is no assertion of notability, at least what would make it different from other thousands of clubs that don't have their own articles on WP. Could be mentioned in the article about music competition though. Tone 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • question In general I really dislike these articles for local branches of clubs, as i think they add nothing to the encyclopedia-- the main organisation invariably has a web site which can much better accommodate this sort of information. Looking at this article, because of the distinctive circumstance,this one might just be notable. Can someone find English or Russian sources? DGG (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:ORG. I'm open to a demonstration of notability for individual branches, but almost by mission, every Rotary Club in the world is doing something similar (and I've been a member of a Rotary-affiliated organization, and my father was a Rotarian for years). I simply don't think it's encyclopedic to treat the individual clubs with this level of detail. It's especially an invitation for NN redlinks. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I had the list of members in mind--otherwise i wouldnt have thought twice. DGG (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common tradition of Rotary clubs to have ambassadors as members, as far as I know. So this does not add to notability significantly. As for the mucical competition, the club is already mentioned in the article as its founder, it's enough. --Tone 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I had the President, Josef Marous, in mind. I'm not sure that "head of the Representation of ThyssenKrupp AG in Russia" is really notable. Depends on whether that translates into president of a national-level subsidiary. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I agree with Dhartung, we can't list every rotary club in the world. --
    talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WFAL

WFAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable collage micropower radio station. The station most likely can be heard for a mile or so. Only real claim to notability is it can heard on the local cable system. There is also a COI as one of it's DJ's has been making a number of edits to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep I actually noticed it wasn't updated in a year so I added new info about college sports, and also a link for references. Also there is a world wide broadcast available online and Time Warner Cable is a regional cable system. The article it's a part of the category: College radio stations in the United States. I've been talking to
    Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)--Sbkbg (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wikipedia:CORP#Primary_criterion which it very clearly fails. I don't see much difference between this and a student newspaper which in most cases is considered non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Except there are specific categories for college radio stations. radio stations reach many more listeners then college newspapers. I feel I have provided the article with references and additional content and improved the article from what it was before.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. note: see Reference section of the article for independent secondary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First if we are going to quote guidelines let quote the entire paragraph and not pick the parts that suit us "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.". The newspaper article used as a reference is from the campus news site [3] far from independent, also one article is far from satisfying "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Ridernyc (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to flag every college radio station, I'm done with this argument. obviously no one else agrees with you or there'd be other delete comments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:RS per Ridernyc. The references are dubious and not substantial enough to establish notability. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I would like to point out that I have tried to find sources for this article and so far have come up with 0. Just directory type listings, blogs, and campus related events. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep I have contributed a few things 1) link, 2) souces, 3)The station has numerous shows during the day and also carries BGSU and local high school sporting events. and; The station is primarily used for students wishing to persue jobs in the radio and communications industry to gain first hand knowlege and experience on operations of a radio station and shows. Def not COI!--Sbkbg (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before User:Ridernyc got involved the main issues were no sources I solved that issue. strait from COI page-Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. if you read the sentences in the above comment i posted see for yourself if there's bias or info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have an amazing ability at picking apart pages and pages of information an choosing the one line that taken totally out of context will support you. To establish notability you need independent sources. I have explained this to you over and over and over again. Ridernyc (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given independent souces. What you're saying is basically if this was a radio station in Detroit, a Detroit newspaper couldn't be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you really want to twist things. That's it I'm moving on I'll let others deal with you from now on. Ridernyc (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, you're basically the only one that has a problem with the article, move on, go bother someone else, better yet just get off wikipedia to be that critical of outside sources. and ruin an article with tons cleanup tags... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, but your sources are
WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes a campus newspaper can be a RS source. no one questions that, the problem here is establishing notability which requires independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable campus radio station. As for broadcasting over the internet as a shoe-in for notability, well that's just plain daft. Anyone with SAM Broadcaster, a subscription to a Shoutcast server and an MP3 collection can run an Internet radio station. A lot do, 99% of which shouldn't come anywhere near having a WP article (my own included). --WebHamster 13:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not an issue that needs to be up for deletions. Campus media is just as worthy as other media. The newspaper i used as a resource is independent of the radio station and reliable. Ridernyc has some problem with me and put this article up for deletion b/c of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wah-wah-wah! This isn't about bad faith, axes to grind or points to be made. Let the afd progress and the consensus will decide. It's now out of your hands and out of Ridernyc's. So far you're the only one with a proven POV and CoI so I suggest you don't damage your case any further with accusations like this. --WebHamster 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commment I just don't won't the article destroyed, I've only done a little bit of work to an article that's been around for like 3 years. I contimue to find new references, I've posted more outside sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) and I think COI and POV only refers to the article not a deletion debate.[reply]
Except none of them are reliable, bar maybe the school newspaper, but even that's a stretch. Regardless, it's still a primary source. For notability, wikipedia needs widespread coverage from secondary and third party sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources do not adequately establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep College media sources can be considered independent and reiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.72.40 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE the anon's only contribution is this article for deletion and is most likely a sockpuppet. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this in the Wikipedia:Verifiability published in university presses- a college newspaper article would fall under that category.--Sbkbg (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would fall under verifiable, but not significantly notable. The quote mine you took is referring to peer reviewed journals and books. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a non notable college radio station. It is clear attempts have been made to properly source the article, yet they yielded no reliable secondary sources. Very likely because there simple are none. Also, I find Sbkbg's arguments for keeping the article entirely unconvincing. I suggest he stops cherry picking sentences from policy as they are meaningless out of context.--Atlan (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite desparate attempts to stretch the concept of notability, non-trivial mention and reliable sources, this just doesn't make the grade Mayalld (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. The campus newspaper doesnt' establish notability for the campus radio station. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, the bare minimum inclusion criterion for a radio station in the United States is whether it's been licensed by the FCC or not — Part 15/micropower stations don't generally qualify. However, it would be perfectly acceptable and quite reasonable to note the station's existence in our article on Bowling Green State University. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge sounds better than deletion, the radio station does follow FCC guidelines because of the boardcast on the Time Warner Cable channel.--Sbkbg (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good idea actually - I think most of us here were caught up in the notability issue that we ended up missing the proverbial forest for the trees. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the sation is not licenced by the FCC it is affiliated with the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System here's a link[4] Also I think there was a bad piece of info on the page WFAL I don't believe the radio station is micro power, that would make it pirate and commercial radio stations aren't pirate. it could have been considered micrpower when it first started in a dorm before the university made it a real station, but that term wasn't formed until the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of whether or not there's one or two articles written in a campus newspaper. For the sake of argument, let's just assume it's independent and notable. 1.) It's primary 2.)It still fails
WP:NOTE as it's only marginal coverage. An editor needs to demonstrate quantity, quality, and prominence in secondary sources. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A student newspaper does not inherently fail
WP:NOTE, nor is it a primary source if the article isn't about the newspaper itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment no need to merge as the topic is already covered in Bowling_Green_State_University#Student_life. Ridernyc (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's also covered in
WBGU-FM. Also of note is that the information there contradicts information in The WFAL article. "it was started as a pirate radio station in a BGSU dorm in the 1970s" versus "According to legend, WFAL actually began as a pirate radio signal run by a student from his dorm room.". Which shows why reliable sourcing is needed for both articles and why the original research tag should not have been removed. As far as I can see none of the sources in the WFAL article cover it's origins as a pirate radio station. Ridernyc (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment/Keep News Corporation owns a variety of newspapers and magazines and also owns many radio and TV stations. if a newspaper did an article on the station it would be considered independent. I guess if you delete this article we'll have to delete half of wikipedia. just because to separate and independent media outlets are owned by the same company doesn't make them primary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete and Merge College stations are notable, the licensed ones by the FCC, this one isn't. Any kid in his/her dorm room could come up with something like this and call it "The Voice of John Doe College". Merge it into the parent college article and elaborate there, but until they have a real licensed station it's not notable enough.
    talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brideswell

Brideswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page is only one sentence, and while many locations are notable, I am not sure if this falls under that criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong. Polarbear97 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. V. T. Shankardass

A. V. T. Shankardass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish sufficient notability; page was created as vanity, and involvement with major projects appears to be more tangential. No references show him to be covered by multiple independent reliable sources. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a google search confirms he exists via a bunch of directory listings, but there are no reliable sources writing about him as the subject. Also note that there has been repeated addition of copyrighted material and the current version of the article includes text from http://www.vpuk.co.uk/Shankardass.htm which has not been released under the GFDL and a request to go through OTRS appears to have been ignored. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. — Scientizzle 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahabharata (film)

The Mahabharata (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails

future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to The Mahabharata (1989 film). Someone familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions might enter "The Mahabharata (film)" if seeking information about the Peter Brook film. When and if the Indian film is released, this article title can be changed from a redirect to a dab page. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I added a {{expand}} tag to the article. Because it is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House

Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This place of worship is simply not notable. --Eliyak T·C 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no question that the article is currently nothing more than a phone book listing but there appears to be some coverage that's not limited to events held at the synagogue. Someone needs to check these before it can be determined it's entirely not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can someone explain to me why an article that's a stub, that in its current state is unarguably not notable, has to be picked on to be deleted? Why can't an "expand this article" tag be left for several months, have it posted on the Judaism portal or something, and only then have it raised as an afd? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment not speaking directly to this article since a) I didn't bring it here and b) I noted there might be sources but in general, I'm cleaning through
      a backlog from May 2007 right now of articles tagged for notability for almost one year and so many could/should have been PROD/AFD/Speedied that it's odd they've lasted so long. I personally believe an article should be worked on in a user's sandbox rather than posted before it's ready just for the sake of having a topic on [subject x]. There's no reason to create articles just because it's possible to do so, and I think it's better for Wiki as a whole to have quality, sourced articles on notable topics rather than 100s of stubs. I'm not speaking of synagogues specifically but rather lots of stubs whose topics are questionably notable. It's good to keep in mind WP:CORP Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. is my perspective. Travellingcari (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep and expand as Travellingcari pointed out that there are many news articles. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is no "statute of limitations" on stubs and until such time as an editor can devote time to the topic and come up with objective research about this congregation. Then we can take it up again at that time perhaps. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, that's not necessarily a valid keep reason. It can always be re-created when/if notable information is ready/avl. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give a reasonable amount of time to expand. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Policemen

Four Policemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have a few reasons for nominating this. First, it is a page on a quote by Roosevelt that obviously hasn't made in into mainstream WWII discussion (They call it the Big Three, not the Four Policemen). Second, the article is of poor quality - more than half of it is a quote, and nothing on this article really stands out as something that needs its own article. Also, due to the source of the 'Four Policemen' quote it does not look like there is going to be any more added to this article, other then what is here (In the year of this article's existence, there has only been six edits outside of the original, and looking it over it doesn't look like they did anything more than correct some spelling mistakes.). Thirdly, I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point in the arguement about the World War II infobox (About the inclusion of major combatants), that can be found here. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator, I must admit that I have no great attachment to the article. It can probably be a footnote in the Allies of WW2 article. All the same, your statement "I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point" verges on a breach of
WP:AGF. Grant 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong keep - 1) The Four Powers declaration was an important U.S. foreign policy discussion, this quote sums up the initial reasoning quite well. 2) Stub or not there is material available to expand this, speculating about when and if a stub might or might not be expanded is no reason to delete information. 3)
WP:AGF (to second Grant. Awotter (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think it is notable enough to warrant it's own page. Note how the Big Three does not have it's own page. Grant's idea of putting it as a footnote in the Allies of World War II article seems like a good idea until it can be further expanded. As it is right now it doesn't warrant it's own page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Three was WWII. This was about postwar security. If it belongs anywhere, it's History of the United Nations#Preliminaries. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it was WW2 as well. The Chinese military contribution, by both KMT and Communist forces, was in the same ballpark as the USSR, US and UK. The suffering of the population arguably exceeded that of the USSR. Grant 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is slighting China here. The point is that the idea of "the Four Policemen" was part of the conception of the postwar security environment. This is how it is used in contemporary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a consensus to have this merged into something? If so, I think Allies of World War II is the best article for it. If there was ever a Big Three article, then it would probably be best in there. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As Dhartung says: google books and google scholar indicate notability; none of the mentions are devoted entirely to discussing the concept, but it seems to be a concept that you can't get around when talking about Roosevelt's vision of post-war diplomacy. Book reviews on JSTOR, going back 40 years and more, indicate the same. Again, as Dhartung says, and as is indicated by such titles as Collective Security and American Foreign Policy: From the League of Nations to NATO, the main context is "postwar security environment", but also to some extent how his view of it shaped FDR's wartime diplomacy. --
    talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rain (energy drink)

Red Rain (energy drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unreferenced, I cannot find reliable references, article appears to be a

WP:COATRACK for talking about solely the nutritional benefits of the drink. EJF (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected per discussion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Aspen Hybrid

Chrysler Aspen Hybrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

There's no valid reason for a separate article to have been created for this submodel already wholly covered in

speculation. We don't have separate articles for the Chevrolet Caprice and the Chevrolet Caprice Classic and the Chevrolet Caprice Classic LE; this is the same situation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Wars

Flag Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently deleted under CSD A7, non notable online version of Capture the Flag, no sources except to the developer's websites. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no assertion of notability, no outside references.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrimWater

TrimWater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously speedy-deleted several times as spam. It's arguably no longer spam, but I don't see any indication that this product is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like kind of a cryptic statement. What about the photo and caption do you think her lawyers would be interested in? --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I seemed cryptic. It doesn't seem likely to me that she has actually endorsed this product but the photograph and its caption gave me the impression that she has done so. I was sufficiently curious to check, since I know she has another national campaign running for a facial soap product, and I can't find any other indication that she has endorsed the product. As I understand it, the US legal system is very stern about such suggestions of endorsement on the part of a celebrity and she would have a cause of action should she choose to exercise it. I am not a lawyer in the US so these are merely my understandings from my reading, but I think the cause of action would be worth pursuing in Canada. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That didn't occur to me as I hadn't interpreted the photo as implying an endorsement, but I can see where you're coming from now that you say it. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per G11 loosely, but certainly non notable. Canyouhearmenow 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability asserted. I'm not finding much as far as third party references go. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Philippe, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Beta

AfDs for this article:
Gamma Beta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable local fraternity. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete after nominating for AfD, became apparent that this is a repost, new article does not address concerns in the original AfD. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per repost.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David William Lane Greer

David William Lane Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability is the reason why I am nominating this, maybe it is the highest level for Canadians if they don't get to win that many medals as even the United Kigdom would, but this has been written by an user with COI issues, as for the highest level, 900 ghits would not justify notability as this is my pure reason. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Venegas

Julio Venegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete and/or merge to

WP:BAND. It appears he was a friend of a notable musician, who died when they were in a garage band together. An tribute album, of sorts, was released. Do not see why he would warrant his own article as he died prior to the notablity of the musican was established. Endless Dan 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly Clear

Perfectly Clear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

bunch of copyvio stuff, only one decent source Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted by

Talk 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Cloverdale Elementary School

Cloverdale Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I would say that it does not assert notability per

talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyEngine

SurveyEngine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication that this is a notable feature. It is used by a few notable companies and organisations (see Talk), but that does not make SurveyEngine notable, since notability is not inherited. AecisBrievenbus 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the journals - they refer to the software - not the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn company, and no references. Tiptoety talk 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references, no
    Notability ClanCC (T / C) 08:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sufficient verification to substantiate notability. Tyrenius (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Z. Gilbert

Julian Z. Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no

reliable sources for the existence of this painter. The sources provided go to the main page of a website that isn't searchable, as far as I can tell, so even if the information is really there, I can't find it. There are only 11 Google hits for "Julian Z. Gilbert", most of them to ebay sellers attempting to sell his works, which, surprisingly, are not the "portraits" that the article says he's noted for. And this may just be my eyes, but the signatures on those works don't look like "Julian Gilbert" to me. There is only one non-Wikipedia hit for "Julian Zangwell Gilbert", and that's to a forum page. The article itself is a part of the Vitus Barbaro hoax. Corvus cornixtalk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


SAVE Let me express a fair opionion of what should be done with this article. First off, the artist's work was clearly listed on ebay as "Julian Z. Gilbert", so there is no problem of those works being attributed to him. 2nd, the images themselves were added by Joel Gilbert, a relative, so there is no issue about copyrights. 3rd, to even have works published into lithographs means one is noted - just like an author being published - therfore by nature notable. 4th, there is no such thing as a Vitus hoax, the person has been proven to be real- so it was always a misunderstanding, rather than a hoax, with also further evidence showing that confussion was just be the work of hackers posting fake IP's. finally, the sourcing provides all information where poeple can get catalogues themselves and see the formal listing of the artist- a valid sourceMctrain (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You keep claiming that the images were uploaded by Joel Gilbert, who you claim is a relative of this unverifiable artist, but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your contention. Corvus cornixtalk 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have every ability to contact the Wikipeia account labeled as "Joel Gilbert" when the pictures were added- talk to that person before you make false assumptions.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE google as the standard of noteriaty is not a valid basis for removal. Google searches only pull up names that have been added to internet articles or listings- hardly relevant. Therefore, googling as a means of inclusion of Wikipedia is a bogus position and not valid to any discussion of inclusion on Wikipedia.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to keep this article if it could be verified. As of now, there are no sources to verify that he ever existed. And I get quite a few hits for William Mosby, and sources for more, off-line. Corvus cornixtalk 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is fully listed in the source cited, which is fully verifiable by the designated year catalogue that is attainable for anyone.Mctrain (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a hoax. A couple of online artist resumes mention studying under someone of the same name, and the dates seem right: [6], [7]. But, this just gives circumstantial evidence for the subject's existence, perhaps as a teacher at the American Academy of Arts in the 1960/70s. I can't find any sources as yet to support notability. I take the point about the limitation of online sources for artists of this period (see User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias for an essay on the subject), and am willing to change my !vote if any sources, online or otherwise, can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the person is real doen't meanthe article can't be a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a person is noting studing under someone, then that is valid notability- you don't list studing under someone of non-significance.Mctrain (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, great, I can list all of my high school teachers and they can get their own articles, then! Corvus cornixtalk 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A teacher is significant to their students. Which is how it should be; but some have a wider significance: [8]. Their notabilty, though, rests on more than a couple of passing references in resumes.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to art resumes' listing who they studied under is a big dealMctrain (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yet another "functionally unverifiable" [9] article. The alleged source is false. Seaching that site, there is no listing for a Julian Gilbert [10] [11] The one possible claim to notability, establishing the Addison Gallery, also seems to be false - there are Addison Galleries in Massachusetts and Florida, but none in Chicago and none founded by a Julian Gilbert. [12] Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edward321. And given that some of it seems outright false, delete as probable hoax. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with
    verify the information in the article, I have to say delete. Deor (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment You've !voted Keep twice, and Delete once. It's okay to leave your comments, but you really should strike 2 of your !votes. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No doubt all true, but no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, obvious hoax, or

WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Cerulean's Syndrome

AfDs for this article:
Cerulean's Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost assuredly a hoax. The only Google hit was the contribs page of the author. Sadly, no speedy-delete criteria exists for this, so off we go to AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for the above reasons.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to do that, but it's been my experience that when I PROD an obvious hoax that isn't somehow eligible for speedy, the PROD gets contested in short order and I've just wasted everyone's time. So I've started going straight to AfD to get it over with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), clear case made for notability and verifibility of website. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hesbah

Al-Hesbah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem like a notable enough website for WP, and plus the claim about it being such a notorious "jihadist" website seems a dubious contradiction when other sources say it is a tool of Saudi intelligence. I could be mistaken but considering the lack of good sources and the contradiction, I suggest delete. Khorshid (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, this is like saying
    9/11 should be deleted because it contradicts itself saying that the government may have had involvement, or it may've been a surprise. It's not an admitted tool of Saudi intelligence, but the charge has been made. Its notability is easily verified, as it was monitored by more than 35 media outlets who used it as a source, including CNN, the Kuwaiti state media, KNews and others. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per news coverage.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- indeed notable, there is sufficient news coverage. Rigby27 Talk 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isara

Isara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mainly an advertisement for the article's subject, isara.org. I was part of this article's creation; however, as there are no reliable sources and the page reads more like an advertisement then anything, it fails

redirect to Ishara, [13] but was edited by User:Ginafish to be about Isara.org. [14] --SyntaxError55 talk 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SyntaxError55 talk 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails notability requirements per
    WP:WEB. Couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. Rigby27 Talk 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as the article has been sufficiently cleaned up and reliable sources have been demonstrated to exist —αlεx•mullεr 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Teitel

Sarah Teitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is blatant advertising to me: mass links, writing, bolding.(not anymore) It fails

reliable sources, only trivial mentions in media according to [15]. Cenarium (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral, maybe two or three months will help to figure things out about her notability.Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've cleaned up the article so it doesn't read as much like a press release puff piece. I've also added references and was able to track down the Toronto Star article alluded to in the text and incorporated it as a reference. On closer examination, the CBC radio profile is actually just a copy of her web site profile, but that is more than offset by being written about in the Toronto Star, which is a major daily newspaper covering the Greater Toronto Area, so still a weak keep (leaning to the keep) for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With only one reliable source as a poet[16] and one as musician[17], the references do not meet the requirements of multiple sources per
WP:BIO#Creative professionals as a writer to me. A couple self-released CDs available online with no record label or tours scheduled also gives me no indication of any "future prominence". dissolvetalk 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - there are multiple reliable soureces about the subject of this article. The fact that they are about different aspect of her work is irrelevant. The primary criteria from the
WP:N rather than superceding it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The Toronto Star piece isn't even about the subect, it's written by the subject. Having a byline in a newspaper doesn't make one notable. The only other reference is a free community newspaper. Hardly "significant coverage" per
WP:N.dissolvetalk 11:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough, although that wasn't the argument you put forth that I was responding to. I'd still prefer to see the article given a chance to have additonal referencing so still a weak keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) by Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelande Quaffing

Gelande Quaffing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP. Non-notable game that someone made up one day. faithless (speak) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Out (film)

Growing Out (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod; Non-

reliable sources (IMDB is not a reliable source). Accounting4Taste:talk 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep, as reliable sources have been added during the AfD to demonstrate

notability —αlεx•mullεr 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Top Gear (Kings Road)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete this boutique fails

WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep. The shop gets a mention by the V&A Museum - the world's most authoritative fashion museum. Clearly notable. I've put in the V&A as a source. Let the article grow in community space in the spirit of open and cooperative collaboration which is the founding principles of the project. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in more refs and expanded it to demonstrate that this shop is widely considered notable. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 11:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From my own Googling, there appears to be sufficient coverage of the shop, which was somewhat influential in its day, to merit an article. I'd wager that some time spent in the periodicals/newspaper archives of a decent library would turn up even more. --Sturm 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Weber-Scaff

Barbara Weber-Scaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn voice actress, no sources and minor roles, fails

WP:N, so nn we don't know where or when she was born, where she grew up, went to school, career, etc., the things one expects in a living person's biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The citations I found and added to the article show nothing; delete as non-notable. • Freechild'sup? 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it may be appropriately merged into the parent article, there is no consensus to delete. A merge discussion may take place as per

Help:Merge in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Nuku Nuku Dash

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
  • Comment You didn't even make a basic attempt to determine notability. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Clarifying Comment In addition to re-direct, Merge content into
    Cutey Honey which had multiple series and OVA iterations. The article does not diverge except for Live Action movies. Either way, certainly do not delete. Content is good, it's a question of where it should go. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note The article has been heavily expanded since its original listing on AfD. Editor's are encourage to reevaluate the article in its current state and not the one line stub it was when the AfD began. --Farix (Talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That looks fine to keep, but I'm not convinced it needs to be a separate page. Was there a reason it could not be adequately covered in the original article? The only real reason to spin this off is that it was an alternate timeline, but as I recall, it was quite poorly received, and more of a footnote to the original series than anything else. I'd still prefer to see it merged... Doceirias (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging the two is the equivalent of hammering a square peg into a round hole. The quality of both articles will suffer from the attempt. Also, the poor condition of the main article is indicative that the main article needs worked on and cleaned up, not that this article should be merged into it. It also doesn't prevent the main article for serving as an overview of the entire franchise, while seperate articles cover the OVAs and TV series. I've already attempted to dress up the lead as a step in that direction. --Farix (Talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not-delete. I'm not going to make a content judgement on this, not having seen/read anything from the series, but a straight deletion would be the wrong course of action. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (the article as cleaned up by Farix is a fine piece of editing) and open a discussion outside of AfD of whether to merge into the main All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article -- or rather, a discussion of what article structure the franchise should have (all separate or merged together). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that discussion should take place on the All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article talk page, and preferably when the sections dealing with the manga, 1st oav, and TV series are all brought up to the level Farix has managed with Nuku Nuku Dash. Keep Doceirias (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actual deletion does not seem to be really on the table anymore. Merging might be, but that can be discussed outside of AfD. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, an obvious hoax. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Rhys Lightning (album)

Go Rhys Lightning (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, and Google yields no hits.

ZionX 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Cantina

Cosmic Cantina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. Google new search gives no hint [18]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete per
WP:N. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Race

Balloon Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this ride is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't even know if balloon race is the technical name for that type of ride anyway.Not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhockey10 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of vancouver breakdance crews

List of vancouver breakdance crews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cites no sources, and does not seem notable.

ZionX 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Gloucestershire

Flag of Gloucestershire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Maybe the issue is that this is a forthcoming flag? Well there was an entry for a forthcoming Kosovan flag in Wikipedia for a long time before the current one was chosen? Why? I imagined it was to let everyone know that there was soon to be a flag chosen for the impending state of Kosovo i.e spreading knowledge - and if memory serves that article mentioned, a flag design competition. This was held under the auspices of the United Nations backed Kosovan government, logically therefore Wikipedia could have been accused of advertising the Kosovan government and its competition. This would have been rather daft though - how could one describe the forthcoming flag without describing the body and process involved in its inception? I seem to recall that there was even a link to an Internet page where one could read all about the competition and even find out how to enter...this seems eerily familiar.

As with the Kosovoan flag, which had an empty space pending the final outcome, I added an empty image for the flag of Gloucestershire - my intention being to update the page with the chosen image, just as happened with Kosovo. Thus, those consulting Wikipedia would not only be aware of the forthcoming flag but will also get to see what the successful design will be.

If people feel strongly opposed to either Gloucestershire, the High Sherriff, or being kept informed of ongoing events - go ahead and delete. —Preceding Vexilo comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides make good arguments here, but in the end, this does have sources and as as much of a "meme" as some of the other faux-religions that have articles on Wikipedia. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Google

AfDs for this article:
The Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete we deleted this a while back and it has reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set :-) Either way, it still isn't encyclopedic and ought to be salted this time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete thisIf church of Google is deleted it will not be fair until all other articles on parody religions like Flying Spaghetti Monster and Landover Baptist Church are deleted. Church of Google is almost as old as Flying Spaghetti Monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge It seems to be notable (just): news hits. At worst, it should be a redirect to Parody religion which mentions it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, it's a non-notable neologistic attempt at humor. Majoreditor (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect Although it is very funny, I don't think that it is encyclopedic. Is there another area that it could be moved to in Wikipedia that would be more appropriate? perhaps the Parody religion that Colonel Warden mentions ...it is funny. --Pmedema (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look. We are serious. At least to a degree. The CoG is about making a point. There's an article for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, no? We may not have many "reliable" sources, but just so everyone is aware, we are doing a press release in April. We are not here to plagiarize Wikipedia. We are not a flash-in-the-pan joke, as our two-year existence shows. Yes, this article has been deleted in the past. Yes, I attempted a previous attempt. But this time, I put in a lot of work and sources, and I think the article should stay. Yes, we are a parody religion. But if the Invisible Pink Unicorn gets an article, why not us? We're not defaming anyone, I tried my hardest to write neutrally. Why isn't it encyclopedic? Because some people have the temerity to make the arguement that a search engine properly fits the definition of a god? Where is the neutrality now?"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add it in
    Unusual Articles of Wikipedia (see the section and think about is or isn't encyclopedic, or wikipedic). There are parody religions in Wikipedia (Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster). Therefore, keep it. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep not a religion exactly, of course, but a notable concept or joke or meme or parody. I dont think its a parody of religion, exactly, but rather of google-based culture.--a there are certainly sources. DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I don't see any reason as to why this article should be deleted. This is a pretty well written article. Also if other religions and parody religions get their own wiki, why can't the CoG get their own? rzm61 (talk) 9:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge If you would just bother to Google for it, you would see that it has >50000 hits for "church of google". Oh wait, did I just fall in a logic loop? ;-) Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable (70 800 000 hits Google). Europe22 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there not the religion of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' on wikipedia? What makes church of Google any different? User:Allpwrflvexx —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I appreciate the appropriate wit of the nominator ("reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set"), I nevertheless note that the article is well-organized and contains numerous references demonstrating notability. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Replace. Please note that Googleism is a religion that has been around for quite a while and has several sects already. However, The Church of Google sound a little bit like a self-promoted article and it seems like another sect of the googleism trying to persuade the public away from the true grounds of googleism (or trying to modify it/or trying to establish a pattern of belief). It can sound funny specially because most of the people would not take it seriously but encyclopedically speaking, Googleism deserves its own article while The Church of Google does not. Therefore, I believe that it would be more adequate to replace an article about the church of google with an article about googleism. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this in an interesting "thought experiment" about reliion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newell Post (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are MANY other parody religions with Wikipedia articles. The CoFSM, Church of SubGenius just to name two. I smell some sort of double standard. The CoG has been around for about two years now and has generated quite a bit of publicity and news. It deserves a place within Wikipedia. Without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.50.85 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and justify I would like to draw evidence to your policy of rejecting [22] as a reason to delete pages. Well how do we know that google is not 'god'? Ok sure it was programmed by a human but someone could just say the engine is a digital incarnation of a real diety? Just as easily the argument could be reversed. Either way WP:IGNORENCE is a reason to KEEP this article. If people find it offensive? well this isn't a small site, there is bound to be thousands of articles you'll find offensive. This church although laughable, does exist and therefore deserves a place along side the greats. Like the aforementioned Pink horse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.201.55 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - non-notable, unlike the FSM (and Googlehits is the worst possible metric to use for discussing this one).
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are not viable arguments for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep for all the other problems with the article there are multiple reliable sources linked at the bottom of the article in the external links section. They just need to be used to actually source the article rather than be listed at the bottom. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The topic may be notable, but the current page reads like a homepage of the religion, not an encyclopedia article. I would be willing to vote keep on an encyclopedia article on this topic. Matchups (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jfire (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powerset, Inc.

Powerset, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete nn company; the 2 articles do not provide significant coverage - more mentions that venture capitalists are funding competitors for Google and Xerox Parc is in that hunt too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to create this article. I thought I was editing a pre-existing article that had been deleted. If you poke around in the dustbins of Wikipedia edit history, there have been a couple of articles created about Powerset. They have been deleted because of notability and significance, but those versions were pretty amateurish and lacked references. Even more problematic is that some of them contained language that smacked of hype or marketing. I wanted to create a simple article with objective, verifiable information and references to back it up (a real encyclopedia entry, not a plug for the company). I'll add a few more references, but with three articles form the mainstream press (NY Times, Business Week, and the Washington Post), I think there's a pretty good argument for notability or significance. Stuartprobinson (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least some of the references are reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly, obviously, notable. $12.5 million venture funding, a founder's fund company, starting a new search engine, partner of and located in Xerox Parc? What's not notable about the company? And if you need confirmation there's already a business week article devoted to the company and 1 of two companies profiled in a Washington Post article. If that's not enough, you can use google. Forbes, PC World and Marketwatch not good enough? Wikidemo (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is evidence of notability, per Wikidemo. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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,

☎ 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon

AfDs for this article:
Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the fact that this article is incredibly poorly written, it appears to be about a cartoon that is either entirely nonexistent or at least very, very non-notable. A quick Google search doesn't bring up anything relevant. While there do appear to be a few cartoons made to the song, they're all fan creations and I can't find any suggestion that the Beatles' ever made a cartoon for the song. The only functional external link is to a site selling memorabilia, which has no mention of any cartoon. Natalie (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think. My brain's hurting. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that this has been there since October 2007 is a little disturbing. Even if we find some source that might, possibly, maybe establish some modicum of notability, this article is not salvageable. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When Abbey Road was released, "Late Night Line Up" commissioned a number of short films as accompaniments to the broadcast of the album in its entirety. I remember watching it. However, since no information seems to be available at present, there is nothing to support this article. It's not a hoax, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps all these short films could be written about in a single article? Everyking (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea, if sources could be found. Trip to the library tomorrow, I think.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that it is dead... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volume overdose records

Volume overdose records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing indicating notability of this company per

WP:BAND criteria, if this is notable, all artists who have 2 releases through them are suddenly notable too! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandie Swingsters

Sandie Swingsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable HS music group, despite having a 50th reunion. Per WP:CORP, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cool, but aside from the external link provided, there seems to be no coverage about them. Looking at the news article, it appears they were a highschool band. - Whpq (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Sawyer

David Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see no evidence via the article and only some via Google (and no RS coverage) of his notability. There's a chance his book would pass, but it doesn't have an article to merge this to. I don't see evidence of notability outside the book, the current article is his resume. Travellingcari (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable - fails
    WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebridean Wolfdog

Hebridean Wolfdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominator forgot to create this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This breed has no register or club and looks as if only one person actually breeds them who is located in Scotland. This cannot be a real breed and it seems this article is being used to advertise the one breeder who is breeding these dogs. --Exhaustfumes (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braal (band)

Braal (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:MUSIC. Simple searches yield no notable information. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancing on the Internet

Freelancing on the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research, a violation of

WP:NOT#OR. Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not one single citation and User:Watcher, who created the article, has not logged in since 2004. Rob (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cause of Suppression

The Cause of Suppression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As the article currently stands, it only links to two other self-referential primary sources affiliated with the

WP:V sources. I could find zero mention of this work in any archived news sources, after searching in 2 different databases. I could only find a brief mention in a "works cited" section in one book, I Thought I Was the Crazy One: 201 Ways to Identify and Deal with Toxic People, by Ruthie O. Grant. This is not enough to assert notability, and certainly not enough to have any semblance of an article with discussion in secondary sources. It should be deleted as non-notable, with no significant discussion or coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: I also looked in a Book Review index in InfoTrac, and could not find any mention of this book there either. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was even some discussion raised as to whether this was a "book" at all, or just some "booklet" put out by the organization. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It may also qualify for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criteria 11.(content is solely based on dissemination material(the booklet itself) from the organisation) -- Stan talk 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with you that this article could be a candidate for {{
WP:PROD had been placed and removed on this article previously. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have made a promise not to edit or vote on deletion of any Project Scientology articles. However the people above make good points. There are about 200-300 other Scientology articles on WP that should also be deleted. There are only a few thousand active Scientologists in the world, plus a few thousand more people whose main interest in life is going on the Internet to criticize/make fun of them. So the amount of coverage WP gives the topic is way out of line for its real world importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It appears to be just another book that contains scientology doctirine and offers no explination on what its significance to...anything is outside of the church. on a side note, how many articles do we have that are just "books by Hubbard"? I can see adding his significant works like Dianetics or the OT doctirine but not books like this. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AP.9

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
Head Shotz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Worldwide Mob Figa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Mindstate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AP.9 & Scoob Nitty presents Mobstarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AP.9 & Scoob Nitty - Codenames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jayda & Ap.9 - The Streets, Poetry and Pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ap.9 & Fed-X - 17708 (MOB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Body Shotz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kartel Kalifornia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Tha Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andre Nickatina & Nick Peace Present: The Jacka, Ap.9 & Husalah - Mob Trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AP.9 Presents: The Mob Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AP.9 Presents: The Life & Times of the Mob Figaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mob Figaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist; fails

WP:MUSIC. Recommend Delete along with associated albums. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid rudiments

Hybrid rudiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unverifiable. Out of the three external links that actually deal with hybrid rudiments, one is no longer there, one is a geocities site, and the other is just a personal website from some engineering major from Minnesota. Also, many of the ones listed are complete neologisms (cheesy pancakes, threesomes, and Doctoral Theses, for example, all have people who have claimed to invented them. Even the ones that DO have descriptions are almost nothing but pure jargon. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toast it!

Fine by me. I just created this article to get the hybrid stuff out of the "rudiments" article anyway. IMHO most of what is in there is total crap. BTW, while you are in the process of deleting worthless articles, check out on the ones on

Moeller Method, Snare technique, and Open, closed, open. Brad Halls (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rydah J. Klyde

Rydah J. Klyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tha Fly Gangsta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What's Really Thizzin? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mac Dre Presents: Thizz Nation Vol. 9, Starring Rydah J. Klyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
El Pueblo Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist on barely notable record label. Recommend Delete, along with associated albums. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If the record label is notable (and it appears to be), the artist has released multiple albums on it, and therefore passes WP:MUSIC. --Eastmain (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found three sources [23] [24] [25]. Do they help? I think that finding sources is a far superior argument for notability than claiming notability via the label. Blast Ulna (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Multiple albums on an apparently notable album, a couple of valid sources from Blast Ulna, and... well, that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:NawlinWiki, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Music Awards

Ultimate Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable upcomming online awards show, completely unsourced. Violates

WP:WEB Mr Senseless (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Accidentially an identical nomination was made at the same time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, a1, some kid who's working on a book to be self-published. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Angel

Wind Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete No

WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

T» 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Automotive Network Testing

Automotive Network Testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; removed by author. Article seems to be a personal essay that fails

WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • True this page isnt too bad compared to others i have seen. There are a few problems with the layout which could be fixed, but is a very good topic which links well to other wikipedia pages. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Automotive joe (talk • 20:00, February 20, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This addition was made with the unsigned template included in it. Seems like it was just a copy of the comment above it... possibly COI or something? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasnt sure how to leave my name so i copied the above users end and change it to my name, sorry for any confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automotive joe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references which no longer make this article fail
WP:V —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre maier (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete unless rewritten from scratch, but not a personal essay--what it reads like is a combination of public relations press releases from the various manufacturers. Have the individual sectionst been checked fro copyvio? DGG (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like some parts were taken from
    Media Oriented Systems Transport and some other pages. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ok delete this i was just trying to add some information for people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre maier (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To any admin, can you close this under CSD G7? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the article doesn't fulfil

WP:MUSIC. —αlεx•mullεr 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mama's Gravy

Mama's Gravy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Speedying the band member articles which constant mostly of two sentences. -WarthogDemon 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep – Based on the information found here [27]. They can make a claim to some notability Shoessss |  Chat  16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Reasonable number of releases, but not on a recognized label (as far as I'm aware). Have received some coverage and appear to have provided music for the film Lineage,[28] and also for Blood Guts Bullets & Octane.[29]--Michig (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Happy Editing,

talk to me 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not listed on allmusic, no releases on a notable label, local touring only ("played up and down the California coast" according to [30]), none of the few sources found by Shoessss appear to be substantial -- they fail
    WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per
    WP:MUSIC. However, if it was edited to include the film references that Michig mentions then it should pass, but since the last lot of major editing was done a year ago I doubt this will happen. So delete.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Per
WP:MUSIC "if [performed music for a work of media that is notable] is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page" Jfire (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naked in the House

Naked in the House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Google news has no hit[31] fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Response: I am confused why this page has been marked for deletion... because it doesn't appear in Google News? Notably, the Google News site for India. What criteria is that?! Am I misunderstanding something?

Having now reviewed portions of Wikipedia's deletion policy and what "does not belong", my personal opinion is that this page belongs in Wikipedia as it serves as a record of an ongoing public event that garners attention in the media, is organized and participated in by a number of highly respected photographers as well as amateurs, and the photographs taken for the event / competition are generally considered to be very tasteful and highly artistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - and response to response above: and one thing for you to know is that
    Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of any events!. Dekisugi (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Response: I appreciate the point about promoting an event. My personal view on NITH is that it is a respected cultural event and exercise in art and photography that deserves to be documented. For what it's worth, that I am not involved in, do not compete in (it's by invitation only), nor do I benefit from the event. Sporting events are often added to Wikipedia, and I don't really see how reporting on past events is any different. Goodness knows that major sporting events are profit centers, the promotion of which I could see as being objectionable, whereas my understanding is any procedes from the NITH exhibition are (in part?) donated to charity. That's subject to verification -- again, I'm not involved. I'm just an admirer of the concept and the work of the photographers involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs external links to prove notability, otherwise Delete Alberon (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Alberon. The external links in the article go to the various entrants in past events, which - while interesting - does nothing to show that the event has received reliable, independent coverage in news articles or other
    reliable sources. This is an article about the event, so we need information that shows that the event itself is notable. The fact that there were contestants is obvious, since it appears to be a contest of some sort, but that does not mean that the event is notable in itself. To put it another way, would the event be notable no matter who participated? The focus, then, needs to be on the event. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, appears thoroughly non-notable, like an advert; add it to
    WP:DAFT.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Response: I thought of this page as a work in progress... I would like to add more information to it... but in light of the above, I frankly have nothing to gain by arguing further. Go ahead and delete. I never imagined that creating a Wikipedia page would be so disheartening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridin' (Mýa song)

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Fails

WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mere pertinent information and delete per above. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Happy Editing,

talk to me 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Non admin closure is not available with a delete result. Relisting to garner further consensus as it is not unanimous.

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

talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Graeme Johnston

Graeme Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the dictionary he edited might be notable (it's a red link but not sure if it was never created or deleted), I don't find any evidence that he is. A search is hard due to an apparently common name, but an attempt at refining didn't provide much. I know that authors pass if their book has been covered widely in outside sources, but I'm not sure the same applies to an editor. Also the edition doesn't appear to have received widespread coverage, and it's unclear whether he worked on any other. Travellingcari (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article over a year ago. I didn't have any more on him than what I put into the article. If he were notable, you'd think the article might have grown. Let him go. Jɪmp 07:19, 14 February 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-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a publisher of a dictionary that dosen't even have it's own article. Also hasn't grown in over a year.
    94 Go Sox! 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone actually wants to go through with the merge I'll provide the contents of the article. Wizardman 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire

Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Article deprodded in March 2007, AFD suggested instead. Article suffers from a lack of third party sources, and is a large original research synthesis. Although it appears there are many references, these are (almost) all drawn from the primary source. Although this can be argued to be an acceptable practice (I'd do it myself), in the absence of these "sources" there is nothing to demonstrate any notability of the article subject itself. The topic of religions in A Song of Ice and Fire is covered somewhat tangentially in the main article, and there would be little relevant content that could be merged that would add to the encyclopedic quality of the main article. NickPenguin(contribs) 18:29, 13 February 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-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Wildt

Jan Wildt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are a few news hits but they link to reviews he wrote, not anything about his published works. A book search is primarily false positives, with the possible exception of the horror compilation. An LOC search doesn't indicate promise. I see no evidence he passes WP:BIO for creative professionals. Travellingcari (talk) 18:11, 13 February 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-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Mirkin

Marcelo Mirkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence whatsoever that he meets WP:BAND Travellingcari (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A hit on Uruguayan radio, as claimed, would be sufficient under
    WP:BAND, but I couldn't find any evidence that such a single existed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:47, 13 February 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-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Rudolf

Heinz Rudolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet

WP:BIO. Google for "Heinz Rudolf" -kunze does not yield sources. Lea (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:35, 13 February 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-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability, very few (if any?) independent sources. Does not meet
    WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mymelody-Molly Jones

Mymelody-Molly Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, there are zero Google hits for Mymelody Molly Jones and only two for Peeraporn Thapviwat, neither of them a reliable source. I freely admit that the transliteration from Thai to Latin characters may make this difficult to search for, but if she's now living in the United States and is a well-known Elvis impersonator, I would expect to find some evidence of it in English. She isn't listed on imdb as an actor for the Point of No Return episode of "That's So Raven" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0720491/ "Thai Achiever" magazine, which is used for references, has no web presence. That's not necessarily a problem, except that if this magazine does exist, the references just to the name of a magazine do no good, they require issue numbers. Corvus cornixtalk 03:16, 13 February 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-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Macroinequity

Macroinequity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Concern was: "Neologism with no reliable independent sources; suggest deletion per

WP:NOT#OR." This term has no Google hits and no Google Scholar hits. The article has no reliable independent sources to substantiate its content or establish notable usage. --Muchness (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canon EOS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 300X

Canon EOS 300X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Almost any product from a company such as Canon is likely to be the subject of multiple coverage. See a search at Google News for two such reviews, and check back issues of photography magazines at your local library. --Eastmain (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are dozens of poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Not a significant or notable achievement in photography. MBisanz talk 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canon EOS. Source article and destination talk pages tagged accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 30V

Canon EOS 30V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot cameras to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are several other poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete this article. While there may be reason to merge, there is not sufficient consensus for a merger to close this AfD with that result. Arguments to merge are arguments to keep, albeit in a different article. If that outcome is still desire subsequent revision and sourcing, merger can, of course, be proposed and carried out as per

Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Canon EOS 300

Canon EOS 300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot cameras to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are several other poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. This is probably more suited to merging than some; the consumer grade cameras are generally much less interesting, and quality sources that do more than list the specifications are harder to find. I would oppose strongly merging camera articles as a general case, especially for professional grade equipment. For an example of the treatment that is possible, see the featured article Canon T90. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By all means, please add some of these numerous claimed sources to the article or at least point them out here. Pro forma reprints of press releases and manufacturer's websites do not count for much. Edison (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—notable as it's the subject of multiple independent sources (including one book), as can be seen from the article. This was Canon's consumer-level SLR for a number of years, and was a best-selling camera at the time. Also, article is now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article text has now been 100% rewritten (only remaining is infobox and images) and is referenced. This is a quite substantially different article now than when nominated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1019 cool

1019 cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn neologism per

WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The text isn't unsalvageably incoherent. That would something in the realm of "sdsdfsadfsfsgdftgadf".
Talk 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No, you're right, I sometimes inadvertently strech the limits of G1 in cases that are uncontroversial, but G1 is very specific, and if the page doesn't meet those guidelines, there is no substitue for forming consensus. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP Yeah this page doesn't have no credible sources or much of a page at all but its slowly starting out...The word means a lot to us people that live in richmond and is a type new vocabulary we use...I thinks its notable to put on wikipedia to show people what it means...If this word be taken off...Then we should look at the other words wikipedia has on their site like bootylicious...that to me is a nonsense word more than 1019 cool.....
  • Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a page about the word bootylicious. It has an article about a
    notable song with that title. If there were a notable song called 1019 cool we could have an article about that. As there isn't, we can't Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, I am saying exactly that.
    Notability is the criteria that we use to determine whether an article is allowed. Anything else would be a nonsense (are we to not have articles on "bad" things?). You could, of course, put an article about a song that you don't like up for deletion. However, notability isn't a matter of opinion. Wikipedia has guidelines which define notability, and the song qualifies. Any move to delete it would be doomed to failure. Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Burnett

Ted Burnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn alledged full-time writer who actually appears to be an unemployed blogger Mayalld (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable independent sources to establish that the subject meets
    WP:BIO. --Muchness (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), A strong case has been made that this article meets the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Starz Clik

Trap Starz Clik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious claim of "national recognition and success" 9Nak (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Only claim to notability would be the fact that they are signed to Universal Republic. They are listed at UR's website, but their artist page is almost blank. I'd be more inclined to keep if they had a charted song. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their single "Get It Big" has charted on Billboard.Peecee1978 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peecee1978; their single has indeed charted on not just one, but three Billboard charts (see here). I'll add the chart positions to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Their song could be mistaken for a parody of Lil Jon but they are immensely popular in the South and quickly crossing over nationwide. Charting on Billboard is not in itself notability but the odds are that their single's success will result in an even more successful debut album. If it doesn't delete post-haste. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close and relist semi-protected due to the ongoing disrutpion by a sock farm (CU). -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE and Maoist Relations

ATTN I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE JUDGED BY THE WIKI List of India-related deletion discussions

List of India-related deletion discussions --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]


LTTE and Maoist Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strange essay, on highly controversial topic, making highly controversial statements. Given reference link is faulty, it is copypasting of newsarticles rather than direct references. Soman (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman is not allowing others to Contribute.

talk) 08:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]



Article must be known and included as part of

talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Soman Fails to Provide recent and upto date information . This page was created on Recent Activities that had taken place just a while ago. I am just contributing and am sure it will eventually expand.

Here, Gatherd Information from News and Other Sources

Refferences

There are indefinite amount of resources too many and i garuntee 100% this article is going to expand.

User:Soman is just picking on articles i have created and nominating them for deletion and my articles are all information that are most upto date. I did nothing wrong i am just contributing like any other Wikipedian. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Information seems to be popular on Google as well. --ThambeEeE (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Three other related AfDs and disruptions of the process are discussed at ANI. --Soman (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Taprobanus (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless specific inline references can be provided for the specific statements and they can be put into historical context. Since the references go back to 2005 writing this as a currently valid description of things seems incorrect. DGG (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No
    WP:RS given. Watchdogb (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep Yes. enna ? watchdogb orey oru Tamil pulli . dai anna sollu unakkaga. soman vesay lossu penn ketta. This article is the truth bara pundaaeyyy --

talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

*Keep article may be useful in future. --

talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Comment - Useful for what ? this is a theory that can be fully intergrated within the main articles such as
LTTE Taprobanus (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Ok Taprobanus add it then. Put it on

talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note -- Article should also be put in Nepal Maoists article and CPI too --

talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


Here Gatherd some more References from the RajayaSabha Goverment Politic Line from their website and Sri Lankan Website that provides Ref to all articles posted

and here are some more regular News Updates on the Relations

http://www.profilesinterror.com/updates/2006_04_23_archive.html

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050710/world.htm#4

http://naxalnaxalitemaoist.wordpress.com/category/news/

Theres too many. Its that popular and should be notable --

talk
) 11:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

I'm copypasting a comment I did on the article take page, regarding given links: "On references:

Intelligence sources [my emphasis, who are they?] informed that the entry of Tamil refugees from Jaffna (Sri Lanka) to Malkangiri five years back could have [my emphasis, note speculatory tone] established the link between Koraput Naxalites with Tamil cadres who later established their links with LTTE."

Members of the village militia in AbujmarhThe LTTE connection is being suspected because of the liberal use of landmines and pressure bombs. These were initially used in Andhra Pradesh but are now being deployed in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand to attack politicians and security personnel.

The Maoists support the LTTE as also the separatist campaigns in Kashmir and the North-east which they term “nationalist movements.” The CPI (Maoist) is listed at 27 on the Union Home Ministry’s list of banned organisations." Speculatory tone, 'connection is being suspected', speculations on link between CPI(Maoist) policy of national selfdetermination.

--Soman (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

--Soman (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go through website * http://www.spur.asn.au/latest1.htm all the refferences on each article that is posted on there is provided--

talk) 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

go throught the Politic website http://rajyasabha.gov.in/resume/206/obituary.htm - it says shri Anand Sharma raised a matter regarding open Press Conference by CPI (Maoist) in a village on Indo-Nepal border on the 14th December, 2005 and its links with LTTE and Maoists of Nepal. and further more. that is from Indian Politic website thats pure Refernce —Preceding

talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This is from the Naxal Maoist Website. and Their Link with LTTE

http://naxalnaxalitemaoist.wordpress.com/category/news/ - Go throught that too --

talk) 13:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

you fail to go through many Refs i provided i can get more and go throught them properly --

talk) 13:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Jawan101, please clearly read
WP:FORK which clearly gives proper guidelines. All the sock puppetry and the inability of users to give reference to a respected Source, like BBC, AFP, Reuters or any academic reference already speaks for itself- delete. Sweet and simple Watchdogb (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


Wiki Admins i will like to state: User:Soman is being racist and and is a Sikh Extremist that is vandalising and contributing bad faith towards Hindus. (due to past conlflicts between the two)

--

talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note Wiki Admins users :

talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Maoism

Indian Maoism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

forking of Communist Party of India (Maoist) Soman (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

talk) 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please read
WP:FORK]. --Soman (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Soman fails to Provide recent and upto date information . This page was created on Recent Activities that had taken place just a while ago. I am just contributing and am sure it will eventually expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Three other related AfDs and disruptions of the process are discussed at ANI. --Soman (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Taprobanus (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The references seem to be almost entirely political and party blogs, which is not acceptable for a topic like this. DGG (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE JUDGED BY THE WIKI List of India-related deletion discussions

List of India-related deletion discussions --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (just housekeeping here) Will (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who deleted it. I closed it as such, and this early, since it is no need to drag out with such an obvious decision. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad (no images)

This is a POV copy of an existing article - it is a version of the Muhammad article that confirms to Islamic thinking on the viewing of images of the prophet - how many and where is an important question – but it’s not answered by throwing every element of good practice we have out of the window! . A precedent cannot be allow to be set, where does it end - a copy of the penis article with no pictures? maybe copies of articles that mention G-D rather than God. This is a redundant article and should be speeded out of existence. Fredrick day (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further comment by nominator the other problem with this article, is that unless we abandon NPOV, NOTCENSORED etc, then it is impossible to stop somene adding the images and acting entirely with policy and good practice behind them. And when you add the images, the article title needs changing to em.. Muhammad. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reason we don't allow "G-d" to be mandated in article space, we can't do this in article space. NPOV is non-negotiable, even for major religious topics.
    t/e 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I respect your intentions but the problem with the article is two-fold - a) it breaches pretty much every much policy we have and b) those policies means that it would be impossible to stop anyone adding the images. The deletes should not be taken as judgment on your good intentions because they are not - they are simply reflecting editors application of policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me get this straight - setting up an article specifically to address religious concern and provide an article that is acceptable to followers of one faith is not a POV folk? it conforms to our NPOV policy? really? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would lead to censoring articles not compatible with Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. creeds and beliefs. That would be incompatible with NPOV.
t/e 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You guys don't seem to understand, that it is not about addressing religious concerns or being compatible with creeds. It is about WP not excluding editors because of their creed. You might not want to exclude them on purpose, but it is going to happen, if you enforce your "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces ..." policy. --Raphael1 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about editors to whom pornography is offensive for religious reasons, or depictions of the human body? Do we clean up
t/e 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I haven't found any complains on those talk pages. The last complains have been, that there are only white penises and that the vagina seems to belong to a teenager. You argument is a straw-man argument. --Raphael1 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia is not excluding anyone from editing here, as long as they choose to follow established policy. If a person feels that the rules are not to their liking, then they choose to remove themselves from the project. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is not true. Take a look at
WP:VANDAL even though it states, that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.". --Raphael1 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It is quite true, actually. Removing the images because of religious restrictions calling for such removal does not at all qualify as a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". Thus, your position pretty much falls apart. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are many different reasons to remove those images. WP doesn't have religious restrictions so that's an invalid reason. Other reasons are valid though. You can find many reasons on the talk pages, and I've stated a reason in my previous comments. --Raphael1 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV forks go, they don't come a lot more POV than this. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of any other concerns or arguments this is a POV fork. We don't do those and that's just how it is. And yes, I'm Danish. We don't do this to please those who want to pressure us with petitions, we do this for those who need free access to information. Censorship is not compatible with that task.
    talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete,
    dab (𒁳) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete It's a POV fork and would be a dangerous precedent. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see all the delete votes above but my personal view is expressed in User:Aminz/images. In my mind, if the users are given the choice to see the picture or bypass them, it will not amount to censorship. Censorship occurs when with reasonable amount of energy you can not get access to the information you are looking for. Is this a POV-fork? It is. But this can be viewed as an exceptional case (because it really is) and thus "Ignore all rules".--Be happy!! (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what is exceptional about it? you've admitted it's a POV folk, so you agree that it's a breach of core policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you type "Muhammad" into Google now the first article that comes up is the current Wikipedia biography. When this changes to Muhammad (no images) because people spam Google links or Google ranks both articles equally, people clicking a link to get an unbiased, NPOV biography on the subject won't get it...they'll get the lite version. This could quickly become endless when every group wants their own article. Episcopalians, Catholics, Mormons, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all have been the subject of controversy recently and possibly have legitimate reasons to complain about their recent articles on Wikipedia. This isn't an exceptional case. Where NPOV advocates should discuss change is in their articles, not in a fork sub-article. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all imagined cases, not real ones; and one can always find aspects of this issue that are not shared by the others. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that they are all imagined cases is because, fortunately, we don't fork articles. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Hipocresia social

La Hipocresia social (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per

WP:BK. Veritas (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

That's the same book? Didn't notice. --Veritas (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice improvement, and consensus indicates that new sources are enough to warrant a keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Ashton

Gwyn Ashton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. His discography is

ScarianCall me Pat 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Although he has an All Music Guide entry, I couldn't find anything to show that his songs or albums have charted. No prejudice to recreation if someone can give better sources. Spellcast (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's published three albums with
    Wikipedia:MUSIC, criterion 5. I'll try to track down the "Guitar Parts Magazine" competition thing, too. Hey, he's not Clapton or Moore, but he's doing alright... ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Needs third party sources if that's true about Riverside Records, friend :-)
ScarianCall me Pat 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Does the Amazon catalogue count? ;-) Okay, I'll try to hunt it down. --Syzygy (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. [33] I'm beginning to have doubts whether this is the same Riverside label, though? --Syzygy (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those guys don't seem the same... the wiki article says they're a jazz based label whilst the link you've dug up seems to be a for a rocky sort of label. Looks like the label isn't notable...
ScarianCall me Pat 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you think about the Guitar Part vote mentioned in the WP article? (I took it off GA's website) It doesn't look like it's a too serious competition, and GA seemingly isn't mentioned anymore at all there. OTOH, the list of band he's played with (also from his website) to me looks fairly impressive.
Like I said, he's certainly not top-notch commercially, but he's a fine player and apparently a well-known figure in the guitarists' world. Check out the press clippings on his site... --Syzygy (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, you can't really trust his site, it wouldn't count as a
ScarianCall me Pat 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To be equally honest, I don't have a conviction myself anymore. From what I gather, he makes a living off his music, he tours the world quite a lot, he makes records which sell modestly (about the same ranking on Amazon as Klaatu), apparently has been seen on stage with quite a few important names (provided he doesn't blatantly lie on his commercial webpage...), and seems to have a small fan base. I have no idea what his importance in the R&B scene really is; at least he scores 26,000+ hits at Google, not counting the WP entries. ;-) (Add to this a bit of personal bias, since as an owner of all his CDs I think he's wildly underrated, and I feel a bit parental about the article, too.) So, I'm not sure whether he qualifies as notable? (In a nutshell, I'd like to see the article survive, but I won't throw a tantrum if it gets deleted.) --Syzygy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source [34]. Clearly notable [35]. JJL (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at this point in time the article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. However, if it was edited to include the references that are mentioned above, then that is a different story. If someone comes across this article and reads it they shouldn't have to go googling to see if the person in question is notable or not. That's what references and citations are for. You guys have obviously found a bunch, lets get them edited in and keep this article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I understand you're saying "Keep, but expand the article from a stub to a decent entry"? --Syzygy (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you could say that too. I do tend to decide based on how the article is presented in the here and now though, not on what it could look like if some one got around to doing something to it.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JJL has provided some good sources. Hazillow (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJL, the notability of the subject should now be evident. RFerreira (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources clearly show notability.
    matt91486 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was consensus was to Delete. --VS talk 12:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slash magazine

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

talk) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Speedy close and keep (in light of the below). Nominated in bad faith by disruptive editor who is now indefinitely blocked[36], in an attempt to delete material from
    J Stalin article on claim that the source, SLASH magazine, was not reliable. Note how he first deletes the reference to SLASH, then deletes the material as unreferenced.[37][38]. The magazine is clearly notable - nearly 40,000 google hits[39], including a number of news articles speifically about the magazine in the Los Angeles Times[40]. I won't bother to make the full argument. This AfD nomination is screwball. Wikidemo (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment - thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be right. When I google "slash magazine" and "kyle hinton" in various combinations I get only a handful of google hits each time, the most significant of which is a mention in a blog, and no news stories. Therefore, although I still think the nomination was in bad faith and the closing admin should take that into account when weighing the nominator's statements, the claim itself is probably correct and the magazine appears to be non-notable. Wikidemo (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I was sure that I would be able to estalish notability via secondary sources, but I could not. I find it hard to believe that a glossy paper art magazine that is for sale internationally and in places like Borders Bookstore isn't notable, but if it is, I can't sift a good reference from among all the punk magazine hits. Xymmax (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Deleted per CSD#G7. ChetblongT C 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Dragoons

Tennessee Dragoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I didn't think this fit into any speedy deletion criteria and to me it looks unnotable and/or like a copyvio. — Taggard (Talk) 14:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment When the nominator claims it is a copyright violation, he should state what the article is copied from. Edison (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is rife with peacock words and praise, and in dire need of cleanup, references, and other such things, it also brings up several Google hits as a volunteer cavalry squad, which is notable.

ZionX 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak delete The unit's history [41] claims that the military instruction program at the University of Tennessee is the oldest of any U.S. state university, and that the unit volunteered and fought in the
    ROTC programs for military instruction by the early 20th century and apparently now have a mostly ceremonial role to supplement the ROTC program, such as carrying out the flag at football games. In general a military unit which has multiple historical acounts of its actions would satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, but I have not found refs other than the unit's own website and the aforementioned incidental mention from the 1880's. The article has only been there for a couple of days, and perhaps by the end of the AFD period someone can find references in military history books to adequately reference the units 19th century military history, which is more of a justification for an article than its present function as a campus student organization. Edison (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The only major editor has just blanked the page. DGG (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zebastian Victorin

AfDs for this article:
Zebastian Victorin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wrong language. If its possible to move this to the correct language maybe it should be. Nekohakase (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; looks like a CV, no need to transwiki to another language. Tizio 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a CV; if a Swedish speaker could confirm, it's a speedy A7 candidate. JohnCD (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes it's a CV; I am swedish and confirms this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.139.100 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Trading Post

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A few useful contribs, but looks like an advert, also no referenes and unsure about notibliity RT | Talk 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the copy so that it sounded less like an advertisement and included at least some references. Personally I think the article is worth keeping around because Sierra Trading Post has a strong online presence and is one of the major employers in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Obviously since I posted the article I'm biased, so I would like to hear what other people think on the issue. Catchiso (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Leemann

Adrian Leemann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A young researcher in linguistics, but not satisfying the notability criteria for academics: his list of publications includes only specialised conferences and local publications, which makes him unlikely to be an important figure in his field (yet...). I would infer from the article and his CV that he his currently a PhD student. Schutz (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

☎ 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Newspaper Licensing Ireland

Newspaper Licensing Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete google search shows 295 hits [42], but none of them prove notability. Fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Neutral for now – this ghit seems to indicate the start of some notability, certainly. The entry on Eoin Purcell's blog is disqualified for being a blog, although the blog in question seems reasonably reputable and read. The organisation certainly seems to be of some importance, and while that doesn't automatically imply notability, it suggests it. Should definitely be given some time, and a chance to see if anyone is interested enough to fix up the article and make it look like a wikipedia article. SamBC(talk) 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be fixed, not deleted. Let's put the trigger fingers away -

talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Several of the Google searchs provide secondary sources, therefore it passes

talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: An interesting thought is that, since this organization provides a service to and does business with newspapers on a business-to-business basis, would newspaper articles about the subject be considered independent? I concur that there appears to be some possible notability, but it's fuzzy at best. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to admit that crossed my mind last night as well, but as all the major national and, from what I can see from the website, most of the regional papers in Ireland use them as a clearing house for copyright "rights", making them the only game in town (so to speak), there isn't really a need for non-neutral coverage. Unfortunately, finding sources at all is a problem here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Striking a section there. I misread something. Correcting myself. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Probably notable. Better sourcing should be possible through trade publications. DGG (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but citations from
    original research on my part.) As DGG points out, there should be reliable sources to be found in trade journals; as for articles in newspapers, citing them for matters of fact - for example, the date of establishment - but not opinion, should be acceptable. I can find references to articles on the establishment of the body in other sources, but the articles themselves aren't online. In passing, I think there might be a couple of point of view issues in the article as it stands that should be addressed within the article: "Copyright is a cornerstone of the publishing world." does sound a bit like a press release. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morfaw

Alex Morfaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails

WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Turnbull

AfDs for this article:
Philip Turnbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails

WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per

CSD A1 - No Context to identify the subject. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Chapel of Saint Rozalia

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)


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

The result was redirect to grievous bodily harm. Non-admin closure. Jfire (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodily harm

Bodily harm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Idiosyncatic, unreferenced, original research. There is no "medical idea of grievous bodily harm" distinct from the legal and common-sense concept, and the article goes downhill from there into a series of tropes specific to a now-banned user. An article on grievous bodily harm already exists to deal with the normal meaning of the term: I suggest that this article either be made into a redirect to that term, or deleted completely. The Anome (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Parrots

Brazilian Parrots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First, it was in Portugal. I've translated it. And I see, that it is an advertisement of a Biomapa project! So it fails

WP:NOT. I think it is needed to be deleted - Wikipedia is not for adverts! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • delete. Same reasons as above. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This is about a scientific project called BIOMAPA at the
    Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, so it is not a commercial enterprise and the article cannot be seen as an advertisement (nothing is for sale here). However, the project is still in its infancy and it is doubtful if it is developped to a point so that it deserves a Wikipedia article. If so, it should be created under the name BIOPAMA, preferably first at the Portuguese Wikipedia, and a more encyclopedic description should be given. The list of species is not informative, if at all, it should be incorporated into the Wikispecies: project, although most if not all of the species mentioned are already listed there.  Andreas  (T) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Advertisement. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uses first person (red flag for spam). But whether or not it is intended as an ad, it does nothing but duplicate information already found elsewhere in the encyclopedia (except for the organization, of which the article only states the existence and purpose). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the list of species found in a country seems like it might be a perfectly valid article, no matter whether it is derived from another free project--I think its not a free project but Im not an expert about this. There is no exactly equivalent category., And yes, we should . do an article on the project, but that's a separate question. I've notified WikiProject birds for a more informed opinion than I can give on the appropriateness of this article. DGG (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a liost of birds for every country on Earth, so this doesn't add anything that List of birds of Brazil doesn't already cover. We don't need separate lists for every family or other taxa. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per Sabine's Sunbird Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Yupik (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like a good list that is useful to Wikipedia.SwirlexThe Barnstar Giver —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic article that deals with the Project Biomapa. Even as a list of parrots found in Brazil it is completely misleading and of no use: It includes numerous species not found in Brazil (
    Rabo3 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into List of birds of Brazil as per SS, this is how we have done all birds articles. Links can go to a subheading within that article so nothing is lost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
Careful with the merge idea: Why merge a page that is loaded with mistakes (as per my previous comment) with a page that essentially is correct? Better just delete it (or perhaps just change it to a redirect to the parrot section in the List of birds of Brazil).
Rabo3 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Why would we want to merge incorrect information into correct information that is already complete anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedying. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian socialism

Humanitarian socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:NOR. Reads like an essay. Only source is a blog and the text seems to have been copied from it. See here. Ascidian (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to Keep. Black Kite 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballacraine railway station

Ballacraine railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete 5 hints in Google search when searching as Ballacraine railway station [45] and 5 hints when searching as Ballacraine Halt [46]. Fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy delete per

WP:CSD#G11. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Alfredo Castellanos

Alfredo Castellanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was delete --slakr\ talk / 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphie aversa

Ralphie aversa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete fails

WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but Jtrainor is right when he points out that there's no deadline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YMT-05 Hildolfr

YMT-05 Hildolfr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Text of injunction For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Where does it say one cannot create them? DGG (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Do you agree that any articles which were created after the injunction was issued are fair game for AFD, in any case, since they were not "currently existing" at the time the injunction was issued? Edison (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and tag for expansion It was only created two days ago. Give it time. It's rather a little bitey to nom it only ten minutes after creation.

Though it is my personal belief that it is probably better to merge it. Jtrainor (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Lines (novel)

Battle Lines (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:BK. Google search shows many hits, but no reliable source establish its notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: recreation of AfD-deleted article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Killer

AfDs for this article:
Beauty Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (×delete) – (View AfD)

Delete No

WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, doesn't seem sufficiently notable as a corporation —αlεx•mullεr 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARO Technologies

FARO Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I previously deleted this as db-spam, it's been recreated and now reads less like spam, but still doesn't demonstrate notability unless a precedent has been set that being listed on the Nasdaq is notable. Khukri 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per nom. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; tech businesses need to show fairly strong notability at the outset. They still refer to their products as solutions and make unreferenced claims that their products make it possible that production errors . . . can be detected much faster than with common quality assurance, so it still reads like spam to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Publically traded companies listed on NASDAQ are likely to be sufficiently notable. Plenty of good hits on Google News[49], including Forbes, CNNMoney, Fox Business etc. The promotional parts of the article need to be cleaned up, but the company meets CORP.--
    talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ward

Brian Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable living person; appears to be self-promotion. This article was tagged does not cite any references or sources in April 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedied as G11 (advertising). No non-primary sources, reads like spam. Black Kite 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algorego

Algorego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. 160 hits in google search. [50]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Currently Google gives 187 hits for "Algorego".(2008.02.22) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viesturz (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr\ talk / 11:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery (software)

Battery (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Assassin

Jade Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was Speedy Delete per

WP:CSD#A7, deleted by Od Mishehu at 14:16, 20 February 2008. Non-deleting admin closure. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Casseva

Casseva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:CORP. No third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other support for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brynjar Aa

Brynjar Aa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Reluctantly nominating for deletion. The article was created by

WP:BIO. A google search gives 78 hits[51], but do not prove notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I think it was created when I was going through a missing list beginning with aa. There isn't practically any web info on him I agree but that isn't the first time google hasn;t come up with the goods. I can't emphasis strongly enough that google shouldn't be relied on for notability as it is grossly uneven. I've asked Punkmorten if he has any idea of notability and if any of the libraries in Norway would have anything on him. I;m certain alot could be written about him using a Norwegian source but as it is it isn't very useful. I'd hoped it would have been expanded by now but I've noticed most of the Norwegian articles are still stubs sub stubs even because very few people can translate from Norwegian. So if we could wait until he replies. Thanks
$1,000,000? 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh wait a minute. I;ve found that if you type in Brynjar Å a lot more comes up. This could easily be translated from Norwegian
$1,000,000? 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am withdrawing my nomination per above comments. I will like to see the article being improved. I think members of WikiProject Norway can help in translating source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd like to see somebody expand it first. I think this afd was valid given the current situation .

$1,000,000? 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that the sources provided above, I think the article can prove significance, which was not at the time of nomination. But the problem being faced here is translation into English. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, as with thousands of others. I have proposed some kind of Wiki Translation - for the wikimedia project to venture into free translation in tens of languages. As yet Jimbo hasn't responded to me, but for me inability to translate from the less common language sis one of the biggest obstacles to universal information on wikipedia. I;m think ing about making a formal proposal. I strongly think the wiki project needs to do something about developing this as an educational tool

$1,000,000? 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I've run into this issue before - where possible and all else being equal, English language sources are preferable. But foreign-language sources are entirely acceptable to establish notability, provided they might other RS criteria (of course). There are plenty of editors who are proficient in Norwegian. A better idea than a translation facility is to have a board for each non-English language consisting of editors who volunteer to confirm the veracity of the sources and accuracy of the translation when this comes up. I put a half hour of edits into this article, but then it got lost due to an edit conflict. I'll pick up again later, but now I have to get back to the work people pay me for. --Leifern (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a taskforce for translation is needed. It is especially important while dealing with articles related to non-English speaking countries. It can be proposed as a separate formal policy, or voluntarily. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jfire (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Age Of The Understatement

The Age Of The Understatement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and article is tagged with {{unreferenced}} —αlεx•mullεr 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad To The Bone (Running Wild Single)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete explicitly fails

WP:MUSIC. One hint in Google search - wikipedia [53]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmmm...I have made a mistake in google search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This searching gives many more hits[54]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still sources are lacking. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since there's no consensus on the redirect target. Wizardman 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Identity

American Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:RS given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy Redirect to Culture of the United States, per - 10:42, 28 July 2006 JLaTondre (Talk | contribs) (RFD closed as "keep with retarget"). Without prejudice to future creation of a properly referenced and well-written national identity article for the US. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amoi Mobile Phones

Amoi Mobile Phones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellarmine University Radio

Bellarmine University Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basel Sinfonietta

Basel Sinfonietta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stephen 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Idols Fall

All Idols Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete explicitly fails

WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, I have been a bit busy of late to tidy it up, but I believe that they are a notable new band. Making a big impact, quickly gaining media attention and impressing crowds on a big tour. They are currently writing new material but shortly taking a break whilst supporting

Anti Flag
a long standing band. I haven't had time to read the notability guidelines yet. But I may get round to it soon. If the article just needs more references and a bit more info I can do that. If it is purely notability which is the problem, these small UK punk rock bands do not often have a full website with any information, often relying on myspace. I feel that for these bands wikipedia often allows a concise article to be written drawing from the various interviews and other information on the internet. So, wikipedia article often shows highly in search rankings for these bands, giving a nice base for information on these bands.

I doubt anyone else will edit this article, so if any changes are needed or new information added I'll have to do it at some point. So lastly is their any information not included that would allows this article to remain or is it purely since the band are so small?

talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 located references. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete No

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AccountAbility (Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete fails

WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maui Academy of Performing Arts

Maui Academy of Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Has little third party source, most of the references are from the organization's website itself. Fails

WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - it now has multiple non-trivial references from three separate reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article meets the notability requirements and satisfies the original complaint. Btakita (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ki-ken-tai-ichi

Ki-ken-tai-ichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly NN. Black Kite 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder ripps

Ryder ripps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- agree that bio does not meet wiki standards Noxia (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knetwit

Knetwit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. I could relist this but it's a pretty obvious result. Wizardman 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zagrob

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

Non-notable "music group (??)" which doesn't even have an album. Nekohakase (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fixed nom (I presume you're trying to nominate Zagrob?) cab (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pussyman

Pussyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was proded for "unreferenced, no references to be found online." User:Discharging P removed it because (see Talk:Pussyman) "I saw this prod on here, and after reading about how it works, I decided to remove it. I personally know of Pussyman and he is notable, IMO." Still unreferenced and I can't find references online. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne

Andy Wisne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of non-notable actor. Tons of references, but no evidence of notability. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

ATTENTION

This is not an article about being an actor. Andy is a recognizable name for many reasons as the article well documents.

hold on Being a starter for the University of Notre Dame is considered a major accompishment. Andy is a public figure and recognizable name as both an actor and former accomplished athlete at a historic University. Andy has been on NBC,ABC,CBS,FOX,ESPN,LA Times,Chicago Sun Times, Many other Ap sources, editorials. Andy was also invited to speak at Notre Dame.

hold on

ATTENTION

This is not an article about being an actor. Andy is a recognizable name for many reasons as the article well documents.


The article has recently as of Febuary 24, 2008 been cleaned up and tightened. New references have been added and many old ones removed. Spelling corrections were made.

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk)


Please pay close attention to the following listed in Wikipedia-

"check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD. before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the following were breached- Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's nice and all, but you can't write an article about yourself. It's literally one of the first rules here. HalfShadow (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia hold on

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason'- Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Andy Wisne is a recognizable name and notable for many reasons as referenced in article. Starter for the University of Notre Dame football team, family football legacy (Notre Dame/NFL legacy, and an up an comming actor featured in the Los Angeles times, featured on NBC halftime special, Chicago times, and many other sources. How is that not notable??? hold on

Jimmy Clausen has a page and he is only a freshman at ND?


See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia original research# Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia

Obviously persuasion to delete this article comes from personal uninterest in the subjsect matter at hand. After examining some of the Wikipedia's articles there should be no reason for discussion as listed above- ////Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article-Wikipedia

  • On the contrary. Andy wisne has became a name synonymous for perseverance. At a time in history where people need to stand up and lead for human values and strength it is vastly important that the work of such role models not to be underminded, undervalued, or kept hidden solely from a public opinion of like and dislike. Performing at the Improv with Lou Ferrigno and undermining it by saying it is "just" straight to video is poposterous. Andy is someone who has paid dues beyond belief as documented in many stories. His status as a non notable actor is beside the point. Andy is known as an over achieving athlete that broke into another business. This is more than being about an actor. It is about a family legacy, a human being with morality and ethics, and with this he is a RECOGNIZABLE NAME. Thank you for your time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywisne (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 February 2008

Reply to below imdb is an official recourse of refrence for professionalism for actors, director, writers, producers- so on. His improv work can be tracked to the LA Connection comedy theatre. I'm sure they have a number on 411. His director of the improv is listed on the imdb biographyof andy wisne at the top. I'm sure the director Dan Weisman will clarify it for you. The names of actors, directors and crew for sitcom 37b and their salary and wages can be tracked to the director Christopher Demanci. His name is listed on imdb. Not only that but there are contracts on hand in which actor and crew signed that he can supply copies of it. I'm sure someone closely connected with each project would have made a phone call by now if the accusations were false. The article will get cleaned up but there is absolutely no reason that an article on Andy Wisne should exist.


  • Delete Largely sourced to the IMDB entry, which can't be considered wholly reliable for biographical details, and which lists his few credits as either straight-to-video or minor television roles (eg. "Bar Patron" in an episode of Ally McBeal). Beyond this, there doesn't appear to be significant, independent coverage of his improv work, and the pilot Sitcom 37B in which he's cast is sourced to a post on Craigslist.[59] Throwing COI concerns into the mix, this appears to be an exercise in self-promotion. --Sturm 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia hold on Reply to above imdb is an official recourse of refrence for professionalism for actors, director, writers, producers- so on. His improv work can be tracked to the LA Connection comedy theatre. I'm sure they have a number on 411. His director of the improv is listed on the imdb biographyof andy wisne at the top. I'm sure the director Dan Weisman will clarify it for you. The names of actors, directors and crew for sitcom 37b and their salary and wages can be tracked to the director Christopher Demanci. His name is listed on imdb. Not only that but there are contracts on hand in which actor and crew signed that he can supply copies of it. I'm sure someone closely connected with each project would have made a phone call by now if the accusations were false. The article will get cleaned up but there is absolutely no reason that an article on Andy Wisne should not exist.

Also Andy Wisne recieved a co-star billing in the Pilot "Sweet Potato Queens" in which he delivered lines to actress Delta Burke. 300 pound Notre Dame football player becomes a 200 lb sitcom actor and has the Los Angeles Times write an article and that is non notable? Gimme a break. Andy chose to put uncredited on the role because he felt he could do better. This could be confirmed with Eddie Winkler (now at ACME Talent and Literary) when and was with him at Buchwald Talent Group. I'm sure they have a pay stub on file

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn,

Jimmy Clausen has a page and he is only a freshman at ND?

  • Delete attempt at self-promotion by non-notable actor. Edward321 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia


hold on


This information should be included as it will help many people to never give up on their dreams and to keep going. Including the article is more about the journey of an artist and him wanting to share his trials and tribulations and overcomming them. The story is unique in itself, interesting to the masses, historical fact. Being a Notre Dame legacy is reason enough. The story from the Los Angeles Times introducing Andy as a more prevelent public figure is double the reason. Andy loves what he does and I think any agent, manager, or publisist would make sure the biography of Andy Wisne be included in the Wikepedia. Andy is without representation at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete
    WP:AGF aside, Mr. Wisne clearly doesn't understand what we're trying to accomplish and was looking for self-promotion, as stated. SingCal 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

hold on hold on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia hold on[reply]

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia


hold on This information should be included as it will help many people to never give up on their dreams and to keep going. Including the article is more about the journey of an artist and him wanting to share his trials and tribulations and overcomming them. The story is unique in itself, interesting to the masses, historical fact. Being a Notre Dame legacy is reason enough. The story from the Los Angeles Times introducing Andy as a more prevelent public figure is double the reason. Andy loves what he does and I think any agent, manager, or publisist would make sure the biography of Andy Wisne be included in the Wikepedia. Andy is without representation at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on 

Nuetral point of view was not breached.  All information is well documented and referenced

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason'- Wikipedia

hold on This should have been entered in Wikipedia a long time ago. The author does not matter as long as the facts are truth and that was not breached. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.- Wikipedia. With this said the featured stories are far more flattering than what the author has wrote. It is a combination of getting respect with much humility. The article could have been much longer than entered. Notable and recognizable name can not be denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

I'm sure the millions who follow Notre Dame football find it comprehensible. Many of those same fans a have watched and are watching Andy Wisne's progress. Just because you can't comprehend it does not mean others do not

  • Delete. Self-promotion. Cluttering this AfD with ramblings does not help the guy's case. "Irish starter at nose guard" is totally incomprehensible - it does not become any more comprehensible by being stated three times! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Being a starter for the University of Notre Dame is considered a major accompishment. Andy is a public figure and recognizable name as both an actor and former accomplished athlete at a historic University. Andy has been on NBC,ABC,CBS,FOX,ESPN,LA Times,Chicago Sun Times, Many other Ap sources, editorials. Andy was also invited to speak at Notre Dame.

hold on

I'm sure the millions who follow Notre Dame football find it comprehensible. Many of those same fans a have watched and are watching Andy Wisne's progress. Just because you can't comprehend it does not mean others do not


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

WP:NFF —αlεx•mullεr 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sarvam

Sarvam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails

future films notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Because it has not entered production yet. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was Keep the main article and merge the others to it (non-admin close). JJL (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Laird of Burnbrae

Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Peter Primrose, 1st Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Henry Primrose, 2nd Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Peter Primrose, 3rd Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
John Primrose, 4th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
John Primrose, 5th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
John Primrose, 6th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
William Primrose, 7th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
John Primrose, 8th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
James Primrose, 9th Laird of Burnbrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Series of articles by the same user which are essentially

genealogical entries without any indication of notability. No sources are available online other than this user's personal website. She promised to return to add references, but, alas, never did. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep main article as a noble title; merge and redirect all others to it. JJL (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parent & Merge/redir others - Royalty is notable, so Parent Article should remain. Unless each person is independently notable, is notable for something other than the title, redirect them to the Parent Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this outcome as well. Jfire (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jfire - This was a gentry family. The suggestion that it was connected with more than a small area is far fetched. The source cited for this merely indicates that Burnbrae was a common Scottish place name. My guess is thatthe last laird sold his estate at Tulliallan to Lord Keith, who rebuilt the castle there. The article on the castle contains no information on its previous history, but a link could be added. The articles are not helped by having links that are currently redirects to irrelevant pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep main article and redirect others..notable as a titled group at minimum. --Stormbay (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge as suggested. i think everyone agrees how to deal with this group. SNOW close? DGG (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnect

Bonnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at 08:06 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wash day

Wash day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no

WP:RS. Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSM Chio Lim Stone Forest

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete fails

WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment based on GNews searches [61][62], I see a couple of articles from the International Accounting Bulletin which cover the firm [63][64]. For some reason I can't log into AccessMyLibrary.com from so I'll take a look later. cab (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba's research. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent reliable sources (there's one reference in the article, but it doesn't seem to support what it's supposed to, plus it's not independent of the subject). Matchups (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's true that the one reference is not independent, given that "Contact Us" at the bottom leads to the company itself, but the news search done by cab seems to confirm that the business is notable enough at least to be quoted in news articles, as here and here. (I'd incorporate those in the article if I could figure out how.) Not at all likely to be disinterested, IBM profiles them as a customer here. The company sponsors scholarships, I see. In the alternative to deletion, if the article is not kept, I believe it should either be merged or at least redirected to RSM International. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Look

David Look (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails

WP:BIO Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Clearly not made up, but not notable either. Black Kite 23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess SP1900

Princess SP1900 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

No assertion of Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Wongm (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) cat=F[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recycled Rainbow

Recycled Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hey boys and girls, it's another regional offshoot event of

7-11 right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete It boggles the mind how an attendance of 60 people can be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Fails
WP:N spectacularly. Doc Strange (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete complete cruft, non-notable, and not of any interest to anyone not involved. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiburn

Kiwiburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man, this one Kiwi style. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. The most notable thing about this one is apparently that the burn almost blowed up real good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; with added references now meets relevant notability guidelines.&#0151; JEREMY 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think so. Two refs are only announcements of the event to come, and do nothing at all to establish notability. Another talks more about the original Burning Man, and only mentions the NZ event in passing. I don't think these refs do the job, and the Youtube clip is not a reliable source. The radio interview is the only think that comes close. I maintain my position on this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The announcements simply reference the event names;
95bfm) and specifically references the theme camp's title. &#0151; JEREMY 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:N are two different things. The sources seem to pass WP:V, but not WP:N. TJ Spyke` —Preceding comment was added at 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So is that a vote one way or another, TJ? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's one of the more bizarre arguments I've ever heard for keeping an article. There's no meaningful rationale whatsoever for comparing population sizes to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O RLY?&#0151; JEREMY 06:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is...??? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... any chance of getting back on-topic, folks? Keep. The sources are legit ones, and as pointed out Stuff and bFM are both big enough sources to be regarded as passing the required levels. When you add to that that Stuff was relaying a story from the Dominion-Post, one of the country's three biggest newspapers, and I think you have the notability you need for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List_of_regional_Burning_Man_events. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NüTopia

NüTopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Yes, ladies and germs, it's another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. In fact, there's very little to this article at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If no one can be bothered commenting, I'm taking the nominator's word for it, particular as the author was already deemed non-notable and their article deleted.

☎ 11:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Caesar's Messiah

AfDs for this article:
Caesar's Messiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I found no independent reviews of this book from sources that meet the requirements of

WP:salted. Jfire (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was being bold and redirecting. The television series that the character this article is about only started yesterday. It is unnecessary to have an article on the character at this point, because the character surely can't be notable on his own. Should the content of the redirection expand, then there is no reason why the section cannot be expanded into an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Dai Shi has recently been deleted because the content of the article was also a copyright violation and Grounded into a double play is a banned user's sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Shi

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

This article is about a villain of a new TV series. The speedy deletion of this article is contested. Grounded into a double play (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you follow the spirit of the current ARBCOM injunction it should have never been created. Ridernyc (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Deck

Loaded Deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An extremely long, unsourced (because there aren't any) on an entirely non-notable band and its series of mergers. Travellingcari (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ChetblongT C 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —αlεx•mullεr 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy McDaniel

Shaggy McDaniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual with the claim of notability coming from his modelling career, that I can not find substantial support for. The username of the creator implies that this is an autobiographical article and google results for the name come with only four apges, one being this article and one being a log of the creation of this article.

I previously speedied this article but it did have some claim of notability so rather than immediately send it off I have put it here for further discussion. –– Lid(Talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanispamcruft, not notable at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The paucity of ghits would seem to suggest vanity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only indication of potential notability is film roles in films that don't exist; one in pre-production, two in filming, meaning there is a chance none may actually be released. No prejudice against re-creation providing it passes
    WP:N if the films get made and if he's actually a prominent character in them (not 'second crowd member on the left/friend #4). WLU (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. I've left the history of the article so if there's any content which people feel should be in the Britney Spears article, please feel free to merge it across. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ghalib

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

The article does not assert Ghalib's notability. See Relationships do not confer notability Pinkadelica (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Redirect Strong delete Because this individual may or may not be dating Britney Spears is the only possible reason for this article to start. In checking notability criteria, it is apparent that this individual, by himself, is a non-notable person for inclusion in Wikipedia. In accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria, it states That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A. That is relevant to Adnan Ghalib specifically, as the example given in the guideline is actually the first husband of Britney Spears. Relationships do not confer notability. I believe this article should be deleted and anything regarding Ghalib at this juncture should be no more than a notation in the Britney Spears article and not be accorded a separate article. For the reasons below, and the ones I listed here, I am changing my opinion to redirect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the relevant section of the Britney Spears article as a plausible search term. This should remain a redirect (locked if necessary) until such a time as multiple sources describe a notability or importance other than being in a relationship with a celebrity. I am indifferent on if this should be deleted before redirecting. -- saberwyn 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional: This should not be interpreted as a Keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:BLP1E and all that. Just being a boyfriend of a notorious celeb does not confer notability, no matter how many times TMZ mentions your name. It is, of course, a plausible search term, so send people to the appropriate article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Britney Spears. Not notable on his own. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Adnan Ghalib is not even mentioned in the Britney Spears article and current consensus is not to mention him there. Therefore I feel we should consider how appropriate a redirect there would be. I have no strong feelings about this article, though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has had/is having extensive media coverage, people usually come to Wikipedia to learn about new things, and this might well be one of them.
    Operibus anteire) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'd be fine with a redirect, I just don't think the guy warrants an article of his very own. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The info is inherently of interest. Whether it is kept here or merged to Britney Spears (ironically, her initials are BS...), I could care less. — BQZip01 — talk 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Johnson (philosopher)

Charles W. Johnson (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the article is about a blogger who seems to be non-notable. the main argument for keeping it is that he's occasionally cited by roderick long. Bob A (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the "think tank" of which he's a member, the molinari institute, is extremely small and apparently consists of only five people. Bob A (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a basis for this Keep !vote? I can think of some good reasons to think of keeping, but you haven't given any here. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment:He has an article publishedin Reason magazine, and an article included in a published book. Just thought I'd mention that, in case it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.255.84 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both count, but they fall far short of the relevant notability standard, which is
WP:PROF. Is he among the more important academic philosophers living today? Has he won a major independent award or independent verification of his status as an expert? Not that I have seen. Generally, most people who pass WP:PROF are tenured professors, often at major research centers. Being cited by a notable professor does not in itself confer notability, in the same way that being related to a star doesn't. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burning Man. (Specifically, on closer examination of the parent article, to the sub-article List of regional Burning Man events) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frostburn (Regional Burn)

Frostburn (Regional Burn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable event, which claims to be a regional offshoot of Burning Man. No reliable sources, only the official web site and a Flickr photo collection. Only 100 participants at a one-time event. I'm checking into other articles about similar events, and I suspect many of them will come up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an outsider, Burning Man and its "regional offshoots" may appear to be mere events, but Burning Man's core values have evolved into a social movement, and regional events are evidence of this movement. All accurate, neutral articles on legitimate regional burn events are notable for this reason, and removal of said articles feels like an attempt to downplay or even suppress a growing subculture/counter-culture that already reaches every corner of modern civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4noise (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Uh, yeah, we're all about suppression here. Seriously,
    Wikipedia notability standards, period, full stop. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What's the official number of participants required at a one-time event to pass the notability test? Would 101 have made it a notable event? Is it based on the number of participants relative to the number of people reading Wikipedia that could have attended the event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allartburns (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a die-hard Burner and a participant in Frostburn, I nevertheless have to agree with Realkyhick. Should Burning Man have an entry? Definitely--it has impacted the culture as a whole and spawned a social movement, as Wiki4noise points out. Larger regionals such as Playa del Fuego, that are nearly a decade old and still growing? Perhaps, but I would like to see that they have had some influence other than that of Burning Man as a whole. Frostburn? I'm less convinced. What about the weekly Burning Man meet-and-greets that take place at Cambridge Brewing Company in Boston? Do they get an entry as well? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere. I would say that the regional themselves do deserve an entry because they are evidence of a growing social movement, but I would have thought that a list of them should be sufficient, and devoting a whole page to each one seems like unnecessary overdetail.

Notability is defined as the following: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If Frostburn is notable, then whether 100 or 101 people attended is not the issue, rather the issue is whether the culture as a whole noticed it (i.e. news stories etc.) Burning Man clearly meets criteria. Frostburn I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.4 (talk)

  • I don't know if this qualifies as "significant coverage", but the January 30th issue of the Pittsburgh City Paper--the metro area's #1 weekly guide to culture and entertainment--featured a three-column article entitled "Main Event" on the "Short List" page (page 42) all about Frostburn. The online version isn't available any more (it seems they replace the prior week's content with the next weeks content on a single web page), but I have added a reference to the print version of the publication to the Wikipedia article. If anyone wants to see the actual story, I have a scanned GIF version I can forward to you. Wiki4noise (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I did not nominate Playa del Fuego specifically because it has been around a while, attracted attention from outside sources, and generally stood the test of time. Frostburn does not, at least for now. By the way, an article called "Regional Burning Man events," with a paragraph or two about each event, would probably qualify as notable if sourced properly. The regional-burn movement as a whole (Beavis and Butt-Head interrupts: "Heh-heh, he said 'as-a-hole,' heh-heh-heh!") is probably significant enough to be notable, but not most of the individual events. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • good idea, perhaps replacing the "List of Regional Burning Man Events" with a "Summary of Regional Burn Events" page? Wiki4noise (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go for that pretty easily. This title could then redirect to a section in that article. Anyone else have a comment on this idea? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely merge and redirect this and all associated Burning Man articles up at AfD at the moment, unless reliable sources exist or have already been found on a case by case basis —αlεx•mullεr 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these - failing notability check. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - no sustainable notability. - Philippe | Talk 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Birch

Julie Birch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this directly fails

WP:BLP1E as there was nothing notable or extraordinary about the case of this particular woman killing her husband. I PRODed, creator removed it with note one where sources could be found, including one on line. While I don't know anything about the Toronto Sun as an RS, this article has phrasing that leaves me wondering about author professionalism specifically: Paul, I should point out, was one heck of an embalmer and One day, while working over a body, she gave Paul the high sign. He caught it, cherished it, and couldn't wait to introduce his cute colleague to more lively pursuits. The two commenced a prolonged affair. Regardless of source quality, I'm submitting this here for discussion especially reL: WP:BLP1E. Travellingcari (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep I agree that the Toronto Sun article is of poor quality but Travellingcari had previously argued that the six references given in the original article were somehow suspect (as they pre-dated the internet) so I added the Toronto Sun to reassure her. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and I appreciate that, but that doesn't address my issue of BLP1E, she's notable for nothing else and other than the victim being 'one heck of an embalmer' there's nothing special about this case. If it were notable, sources would be easier to find because it would have been covered in greater depth. I know it's a stretch but these are two who come to mind first: Amy Fisher and Lorena Bobbit were pre-internet but there are sources online. Lisa Steinberg was murdered around the time Julie Birch killed, also pre-internet and there are sources online. Why? Because it was deemed worthy of continuing coverage, possibly due to notability. I still see no notability for this case. I realise you're the creator and therefore somewhat partial to it existing otherwise you wouldn't have created it, but I think my rationale still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are at least 66 pages in Category:English murderers. I don't see that this one is any different from the others. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doesn't mean
      they should, which doesn't make it a reason for keeping this one. How does otherstuff make this one not a BLP1E issue? Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep - I remember this murder well. I read about it in the Daily Mirror at the time and it was covered in most of the nationals. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how is it that none of the nationals are cited in it, only local papers? --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I see nothing notable about this crime. It clearly fails
    WP:BLP1E.BWH76 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. seems to be a perfectly ordinary murder. In the absence of a standard of notability for crimes, I prefer that such articles demonstrate some sort of importance or relevance beyond just being in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally think that BLP1E is abused and should be revoked, this meets our biographical guidelines for inclusion just fine. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than that sensationalistic Toronto article, I notice that all of the other refs are local papers, meaning it didn't seem to attract national attention in its own country; but regardless, yeah, just another garden-variety murder. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete
    WP:NOTNEWS, local coverage only, another random murder. Note that BLP1E does not by itself necessitate deletion since that is about what we focus attention on if we choose to have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Covered by
    WP:NOT#NEWS. She has done nothing of lasting notability, and there is little evidence even of immediate notability.--Dycedarg ж 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep p 1 seems notable enough. — BQZip01 — talk 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon's rock block

Falcon's rock block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Falcon's Rock Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable college radio program. I've repeatedly suggested to the editor (who appears to be the DJ who hosts the show) that it should be merged into the article about the radio station, but he keeps removing the mergeto tag so, as I promised, I'm bringing it here. Corvus cornixtalk 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable radio show, the radio station itself is not notable so merger is not really an option. The only place it could go would be the colleges article but mentioning one non-notable show on the colleges radio station would not really be appropriate. Ridernyc (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the whole edit history, I agree with the COI, and this topic isn't really notable enough to be appropriate. ДҖ--Huanghe63talk 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, as per nom. Handschuh-talk to me 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even close to notable. My radio show was on five nights a week, and it wasn't notable either. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also delete the other article by the same user with different capitalization. Jfire (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and COI issues abound. Bstone (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is kinda open and shut. Per above. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • KEEP the newer/fully capitalized version. Delete the old version- Falcon's rock block I forgot to capitalize the name, thank you. But keep the latest version, I solved the COI issue by usuing a 3rd person writing style and a format similar to other radio shows. As far a notablility- all radio shows have local/regional interest, so deleting a show on a small radio station would open the doors to delete all shows that aren't nationally sindicated.Sbkbg (talk)
It's still not notable read
WP:COI, please actually read them before you post again. Ridernyc (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —αlεx•mullεr 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followership

Followership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Surprisingly, this article has been around since 2004. Must have flown under everybody's radar because it's an unreferenced essay about what an ideal follower is. One possibility is to delete and temporarily recreate a redirect to leadership. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced, no claim of notability (though one could likely be made), apparent personal essay. JJL (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "notability" means anything in this case. Followership is a neologism but one that is fairly common in business lingo. I'm not claiming that no article on the term should exist, but this one is beyond repair and there's no past revision to revert to. Pichpich (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - Philippe | Talk 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd's Triangle

AfDs for this article:
Floyd's Triangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable triangle. :-) But seriously, trivial construct that is not commonly known under that name. The article consists mostly of Java and C++ code of no interest whatsoever. Claims of "subtle patterns" are probably intended as a joke. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Uninteresting, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. I would have tried a prod first, but going straight to AfD is more reliable I suppose. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Paul August ☎ 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Salix alba (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Itub's book references seem to establish notability.--Salix alba (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, yes, this is a pretty feeble article, and it could certainly use propping up. The topic, though, is legitimate. I quickly found about a half-dozen different mentions of "Floyd's Triangle" via Google, not counting quite a few requests for the proper method of programming it in one or another language. I failed to find any mention, though, of its origin as a test of programming skill or even the source of the name. The real value of the article consists of the two bits of program language, information in some demand. Let's keep it and hope for future improvement. If the triangle is better known under some other name, as Pichpich may imply, above, then that needs to be taken into consideration: change the article's name, or merge as appropriate. Tim Ross·talk 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you'll be hard-pressed to find mentions of it via Google which are not internet forums where some lazy student asks for the code to do his assignment. An article is not legitimate just because someone teaching some first-year programming course asked this in assignment 1. Note that my Google search returns 50 unique hits, including a number of Wikipedia mirrors. There is simply nothing to say about such a trivial construct and that would actually explain why it probably doesn't have any universal name. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thornafire

Thornafire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

tagged for notability for 3 months no edits have been made to improve the article at all. Looking around I find a lot of Google hits but nothing notable, for example a total of 130 people have listened to their music according to last.fm, with one play for each song in the past week [72]. Beyond that I can't find much more then a few metal blogs reviewing the album. Seems they are not even well known in the metal world since I don't see any of the larger metal sites mentioning them. Ridernyc (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. Grounded into a double play (talk)

Why?
Talk 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
He's just stalking me because I gave him warnings about disruptive editing, see [73] for the entire story. Ridernyc (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked indef. as a sock.
Talk 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bow Down (Mind of Mencia)

Bow Down (Mind of Mencia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article for a skit? Fails

9311 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not really, its a slight parody. But it is really a skit about Mencia rapping about how rappers who go to jail never rap about being in jail..
9311 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National ranked course, definately notable. Other issues can be cleaned up. -Djsasso (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estancia golf club

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

I confess to not being a golfer! This article is about a what seems to me to be a non-notable golf club and/or community. I have been unable to find any references from independent sources to suggest notability. A Google search for Estancia golf club returned 70 hits, all of directory entries or real estate sites. There is no suggestion that the golf course (or the community) are any different from any other. Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the houseing estate is not significant. However, it shares a name with the golf course , which does seem to be notable.--
    talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licia Troisi

Licia Troisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline

notable Italian fantasy writer, 1,570 English Ghits but very little from reliable sources. No refs in current article, those in it:Licia Troisi are unimpressive - passing mentions. English article has already survived a prod, it may well be possible to demonstrate notability but like I say this one just feels very borderline. FlagSteward (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for keep based on notability guidelines are pretty strong. There are some valid concerns about COI and self-promotion (though less so after the cleanup), but those are more editorial issues than AfD issues.--

talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Norman Beaker

Norman Beaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Article was created to self-promote. Enigma msg! 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. So Norman Beaker was a "side man" with the Norman Beaker Band?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Incidentally, he is listed in at least four other books (6 total; 2 unsure)..... [86]. What ever happened to
WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional evidence of notability: AMG credits, plus he has recorded on at least two notable record labels,
WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The label his record is on is Delicious, not Delicious Vinyl. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable self promo.
    talk) 10:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. I have proven where this artist meets
WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. I have proven where this artist meets
WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
By the way, congrats on becoming an new administrator as of yesterday. [87] You really should know better than to participate in a debate without providing Wikipedia guidelines to back up your argument. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. He just was named admin. Can you at least wait a few days before the "an admin should know better" attacks start? ;) Enigma msg! 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Have any of the delete !voters actually read the article and the sources? Passes
    Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. Thank you. In all fairness, the article was a mess when the delete voters prior to my keep reasoning saw it, and I have since attempted cleanup and added sources. I have asked them to revisit the article and this debate. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the history before making accusations. The article was total crap and deserved to be deleted. As has happened many times in the past, the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion. Cricket has now, to his credit, made some good improvements, and the article is now arguably up to standards. Acting like the article is in great shape and everyone who voted to delete didn't bother to read the article is acting in really poor taste and shows a lack of judgment and research on your part. Enigma msg! 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I retract my comments with respect to those who said "delete" before Cricket02's improvements. They still stand for those who did so afterwards. As regards the statement "the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion", why not look for sources and improve it yourself? We're all volunteers here, so it's just as much your responsibility as it it Cricket02's or anyone else's to improve it. The sources were readily available with a couple of quick searches.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Everyone except the last one voted Delete before Cricket improved the page. Yes, we're all volunteers here, but I don't generally write new articles. I've never done it before. I focus on reverting vandalism, warning vandals, and making corrections to articles that have a structure. If I see an article that's a mess, I'm more likely to nominate it at AfD (this is my second AfD nom) than rewrite it. Finally, there are still some concerns about the notability. When I nominated it, the article was not only garbage, but I also noticed that it appeared to have been written by Norman Beaker himself. That's a red flag for me. Enigma msg! 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wanted to comment on your last sentence. You used the word 'responsibility'. It's no one's responsibility to make sure there's an article on anything whatsoever. It's not Cricket's responsibility, and it's certainly not mine. I'm sure there are articles here that have not been created yet, that should be created, but it's not my responsibility. The only way you could say someone is responsible for it would be if they were being paid to keep the encyclopedia up to date and complete. Enigma msg! 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my point. Who is this "someone" that you are trying to get to look at an article and improve it? It's nobody's responsibility to improve an article, so if you think an article should be improved then you should have a go at doing it.
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no someone. I was pointing out that it's a common occurrence for an editor to see an AfD and then improve the article. Say for whatever reason, I didn't want to write the article. Posting on the article's Talk page does nothing. So then what? I see
WP:Bold mentioned often. I don't think I'm lacking that, but what I am lacking is the right way to write an article on Wikipedia. Enigma msg! 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. You didn't look at the article at all. There are no
WP:COI issues now, the article is completely neutral. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. "Borderline case?" Did you know the Wikipedia guidelines when you first signed on? I sure didn't. My first article was shear crap. So maybe you are
WP:Music per my evidence above, i.e. (book source The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 is not good enough for you?). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
OK - keep (slightly reluctantly, given the circumstances). Although it's getting a little difficult to tease out the merits of the article from the personal barbs now, Cricket02 has done a good job in improving the article from the initial vanity puff, and I do now accept there is some evidence of sufficient notability for a brief article on this person - but it will need to be kept an eye on, and should not be taken as meaning that Mr Beaker needs to be mentioned in every article with which he can claim some small connection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't appear to be anything that makes Norman Beaker notable, he is a hired sidesman, who's notability is based on reflected glory, rather than anything he has done. I also must take on board that the article is created for self-promotion. It's no different from individual band members not getting articles because they are not notable individually. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now, that is just a flat out mean comment to make yourself feel bigger. You haven't even looked at the sources have you. I vote delete on these things more times than not but this subject is notable enough for this experienced music-related editor to adopt his article so there shouldn't be any more COI issues. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming Cricket02's comment was directed at me, I have re-read the sources and I am doubly convinced that Mr. Beaker is not notable with the evidence supplied. With due respect, a listing in music-specific book does not necessarily transfer to a general encyclopedia. OTOH I am willing to have my mind changed --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forget the sources for the time being, re-read
WP:MUSIC (#1, #4, #5 (3 albums under NBB), #7 (blues music in NW England)) which seems to say that he meets the notability requirements easily. Additionally, badly written and CoI is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to rewrite if the article's subject meets notability requirements, which Beaker does easily. --WebHamster 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woolag

Woolag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a nonexistent religion, no related G-hits, maybe a hoax? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect, though content may also be merged as appropriate. Instructions for merging have been left at the album article talk pages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Movement (Jumping Biz)

First Movement (Jumping Biz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A long story goes with these articles. Some ELO fans decided to make an article for almost every ELO song released regardless if it wasn't released as a single. At first, I kind of ignored it and waited for more information to be added. Months passed and nothing. I decided to add verifiability templates and it would just lead to the ELO fans reverting my edits. Then, someone prodded the articles and sure enough someone reverted them. Now the articles end up here on AfD. These article above fail

WP:N
as the song was not released as a single and/or charted on any music charts and I am also including the songs below for the same reasons:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Whale (ELO song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Across the Border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nightrider (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh No Not Susan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per

WP:CORP. (non-admin) brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

SkyEurope

SkyEurope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just another low cost carrier, nothing notable about this one. Bananaqueen (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Polowy

Melchior Polowy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is hs wrestling in Louisiana notable? That's the question Bananaqueen (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a stub, but it's enough to assert his notability through the sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's moved beyond Louisiana. He was inducted in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I worked on this article when I found it in the backlog and sourced it. What little is there is what little I found apart from sources connected with the school and the Brother Melchior society. I removed the notability tag for hois role in bringing HS wrestling to Louisiana but unless someone is local and can get access to archives from his coaching time in the 40s-60s, I have doubts this will ever be more than a (sourced) stub. Travellingcari (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The book about him is pretty decent testimonial, even though I suspect that it's a niche publication. This is about as close to the border as we should go, I think. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Athanasios (Kavala city), Greece

Agios Athanasios (Kavala city), Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a road without indication of why this road is

notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. notability has not been demonstrated. - Philippe | Talk 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Dunn

Robert E. Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, article does not assert notability. Roleplayer (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robert E. Dunn is an extremely famous and important lawyer. He is known all throughout New Jersey, especially Somerset County. I don't think that Roleplayer is from New Jersey so obviously he doesn't even have any idea as to who Robert E. Dunn is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Venterius (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability needs to apply to more than a local area. Being well-known in Somerset County isn't enough to justify his inclusion.
    a/c) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. notability has not been proven. - Philippe | Talk 04:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interhall Council

Interhall Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy

reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. This is a generic local organization that is encompassed by Residence hall association Noetic Sage 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to University of Guelph. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to U-Guelph. There's no telling how many universities have bodies by this same name, or very close. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We can't merge and delete, so delete. Honestly, it's just a facet of campus life... everywhere. It's certainly not the first one, best one, or the one we're all talking about. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:SUMMARY, but needs more sources. Just because it needs sources though, doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao Mastani

Bajirao Mastani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails

future films guidelines. Indeed, a situation exactly like this is why the guideline was created in the first place. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremec T-45 transmission

Tremec T-45 transmission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a particular transmission. No sources are provided that explain why this transmission is notable above other transmissions. Perhaps a transmission could be more important to automotive buffs than, say, a

starter motor, but in my opinion, without an independent source that establishes notability, this article should be deleted. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a brand name, and hence the article, which is NPOV, still acts either as an ad or a bit of trivia. If this is a novel form of transmission, it should be detailed in
    automotive transmission. Breaking it free really does not serve the general usefulness of the information. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete/Merge per above — BQZip01 — talk 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChetblongT C 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmetto Grand Prix

Palmetto Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any references for this article. The only Palmetto Grand Prix I can find reference to is a 5 km running race. SeveroTC 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Miller

Natalie Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio presenter. Portglasgow (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Hyndman

Noel Hyndman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Hardly any ghits. Originally PRODded, but PROD rv by anonymous IP user. Portglasgow (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daecaunt

Daecaunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite the hype the article gives him, he is nothing more than yet another MySpace artist. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From
    WP:MUSIC, there is a list of criteria that the community have agreed determine notability for a band or musicians. A judgement is made by the community in debates such as these whether or not an article meets at least one of the required criteria, as I understand it. - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thank you for professionalism and patience to everyone involved here. I am new at writing and editing here and am learning a great deal through this process. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I realize I'm going against the grain here, but top ten artists are certainly notable, IMHO. As a note for Gothicrose1970, make a copy of this article on one of your user pages and continue to work on it. Even if it is deleted, you can improve it and put it back at a later time, but your work isn't completely lost. Who knows, he and his group might become the next Beatles?! — BQZip01 — talk 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that being a "top ten unsigned artist on MySpace" indicated a lack of notability, because he is unsigned (per
WP:MUSIC). Could you clarify what you mean? Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The difference between the article under discussion adn
    WP:MUSIC - but the artist under discussion does not appear to meet any of the possible criteria under the guidelines. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 by User:VirtualSteve, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatraopally

Venkatraopally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable village. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention in good faith that a rationale may be appropriate. It can be found here as a breakdown of the contributions to this discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III

AfDs for this article:
Al Gore III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Clear

WP:BLP-sensitive information that is not appropriate. This is the 8th nomination at AfD for this article, all previous AfD's are linked on the article talkpage. Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should. JERRY talk contribs 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict) Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented. A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture. He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too. But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana. We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling. "He sprained his ankle is 2000"... OMG I should have an article... I sprained my ankle in 2000 also... I was roller-blading. You gonna write the Jerry article? JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when Jerry repeatedly makes national news, is covered by all the major news networks and the wire, we'll write the Jerry article, because then Jerry will have achieved notability by definition: he will have been noted. Fighting this article on non-notability grounds is patently silly and has never reached consensus in 7 AfDs. Robert K S (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what if my mother becomes the next Pope? Would you then make an article from verifiable court records of my parking tickets, j-walking charge, and let's not forget my sprained ankle from 2000! How about a category Category:People who sprained their ankle in 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any real assertion of independant notability here. Besides his parentage, it seems that the only things to say about him are a couple of injuries and minor offences, which is the stuff of tabloid newspapers, not encyclopedias.
    WP:NOTNEWS. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I have long wished this page deleted or merged with Al Gore. Non-public figure, non-notable on the merits. Page has long served as a coatrack for negative sentiments, IMHO. Talk page archives, while overly sanitized, reflect partisan bitterness. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as coatrack page, no notability outside of being a member of Al Gore's family. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion. But if the consensus is to delete, I suggest merging it into his fathers article and turning this page into a redirect (which is what usually happenes in AFDs for family members of notable people). TJ Spyke 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough is enough already. Double-digit AFD nominations and the article is still here? Give it up already.
    talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As nominator, I never participated in any of the previous debates. So there is nothing for me to "Give it up already". How about participate in this discussion with some rationale for keep aside from we have always kept it in the past. Under your logic we would never improve, we would just give up and accept a quagmire. JERRY talk contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, 8 isn't double digits, but I've never seen an article nominated THAT many times for a deletion. And what's up with this "Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should"? Keep relisting this until you get the result that "should" have happened the first seven times? Like Otto says, give it up already. (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did ask "what's up with this Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should?
  • 3 of the previous 7 AfD's were closed as No consensus, including the most-recent one, in July 2007.
  • Consensus can change. There is even a picture linked in the consensus policy that shows it: Image:Consensus new and old.svg.
  • Over time, as we grow (we recently topped 2,222,222 articles, and 200,000,000 edits), we must take a new look at how we have done. I think in this specific case, where Al Gore is no longer a candidate for president, we can take a new look at this, and realize that the subject of this article never really did meet our notability criteria... it is just perhaps more obvious now, since the fog of tabloid coverage has settled.
JERRY talk contribs 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and paste a no consensus outcome? That does not seem like sound advice. JERRY talk contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he could save us all the trouble and cut and paste it himself rather than relying on our mind-reading skills to figure out what he means. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn. I think that you are wrong. Refusal to accept no consensus is actually a pretty good idea, and does not disrupt anything or anyone. Why don't you go think about it for a little while and then come back and strikethrough that comment? JERRY talk contribs 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me amplify my comments. Once you get past two or three AfDs that end as keep, any subsequent AfD is just another stab at trying to find the result you want in complete disregard of established consensus. This abusive practice of creating new AfDs after previous attempts at deletion have failed is completely and utterly disruptive to any meaningful definition of the word "consensus". After all, even if those abusing this process are successful at deletion of the article, why should it not simply be recreated with minor improvements and the cycle started all over again? When will it finally be recognized that you can't keep trying to change the result simply because you disrespect consensus. "Consensus can change" is a complete and total cop out for saying I simply don't give a crap about consensus. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today. Many of the reasons for keep in the earlier AfD's were based on "allow it time to be improved". If we were allowed to go back and ask those people to participate today, we might know if their consensus-forming input has changed. I suspect in many if not most cases, it would. But we
cant do that, and those people may no longer be here anyway. So we have to start anew. When an editor in good faith believes that an article is tacitly unencyclopedic, and for the very first time ever nominates it for deletion, for you to make such accusations is a very wrong thing. I would therefore ask you to once again, please go exhale! Don't panic! And go sit somewhere quietly and think about what you are saying... you are accusing an editor with 14000+ edits, an administrator, somebody who has never been involved in editing or nominating or !voting on this article or any like it, of disruptive behavior. I object to your commenting on me and my motivations here, instead of the article and the merits of same. This is a process where we discuss articles and article subjects, damnit, and not eachother. So please cowboy up and get over it and stop the nonsense. JERRY talk contribs 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
How you can say that a "no consensus" close 7 months ago is a clear indicator that there is consensus is beyond me. I have asked you to refocus on the article and specifically to stop commenting on what you think is going on in my mind, and yet you make the extreme bad faith comment that "I don't give a crap about consensus, all I want is for the article to be deleted." I am afraid there is no way to assume good faith on that one, AlanSohn. You are out of line, you are making me angry, and this conversation needs to stop happening on this page. Period. And that's all I have to say about that. JERRY talk contribs 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn might be reluctant to respond to that, but I'm not. You don't seem to have a problem with ridiculing persons who disagree with you ("You gonna write the Jerry article?", "that is not sound advice", "under your logic we would never improve"; "Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn", etc.). I think WP:CIVIL applies to you as well. I agree with Alansohn on
    WP:POINT, the first part of which is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally". To some of us, this looks like an experiment to test the proposition that "consensus can change" Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Right on, man. JERRY talk contribs 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "evidence" would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for that source. But question: How is an article about the current president of the United States talking to prison inmates about his former alcohol problem useful as a reference with the sunject of this article? JERRY talk contribs 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cites Al Gore III as an example alongside other notable persons such as
George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh. This demonstrates the continuing notability of this person. He is noticed therefore he is notable. Someone reading this item might then come here to find out more about this person. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It does not discuss him at all, it just mentions his name with no explanation for the reference. It says "George W. Bush, Al Gore III, Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy all remind us that anyone can be susceptible to drug problems". Not one other word about him is there. JERRY talk contribs 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author references Al Gore III alongside other famous folk, presuming that the reader knows who he is. This casual usage is a good indicator of notability. But non-Americans or future historians will not readily know who this person is and might easily confuse him with one of the other Al Gores. The article fulfils the proper purpose of providing a neutral account of this person and why he so often appears in the press. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go again calling this article neutral.
"Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented. A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture. He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too. But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana. We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling." JERRY talk contribs 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The treatment is in accordance with the policy of
WP:BLP: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. So, what the article is doing is presenting the notable material in a neutral manner. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You've linked the correct policy, and quoted it correctly. The point you are not seeming to put together is that this material is not notable. Arrests for minor drug possession are not notable, etc. So we should omit the information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability, after which, we will have an empty article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely fail to understand the policy at hand. It doesn't matter whether or not YOU think the subject is important. The question is independent media coverage. The media clearly finds Gore 3 to be a consistent subject for news coverage and has done so on multiple occasions. It's instructive that no one has even bothered to use
    WP:CONSENSUS policy. The fact that the "consensus can change" argument is refuted by "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." and that there has been no response to this clearest possible rejection of an eighth AfD demonstrates a clear issue of bad faith here. If this is an example of trying to find consensus the eighth time around, then consensus is a worthless steaming pile of crap. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete He's the son of Al Gore and that is basically it. Notability is not inherited. Also, being caught with drugs does not make you notable either. I agree with the above delete votes. Undeath (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a felon does not grant notability - neither is notability inherited, this is the stuff of yellow press. EJF (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think deletion on the basis of failure of individual notability criteria misses the bigger picture. It's not that he's the son of somebody famous that makes him notable, nor is it that he has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations. I agree that neither of these things alone is sufficient for notability. It's that he's the son of a politician who has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations and made press in all of the major mainstream media for it. Taken collectively, it's impossible to avert one's eyes from the figure's notability, as sensational as it may be. (Scott Peterson was not notable on merits, either, but media focus on the investigation of his wife's disappearance and his subsequent murder trial grants him notability.) Robert K S (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no argument whatsoever about "merits" as you seem to be defining it, but rather attention. And Scott Peterson got a LOT of it -- heavy, sustained, and ludicrously detailed -- with (sadly) a high level of public interest. Here? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Al Bores main article if his only notable achievement is the speech. Otherwise keep, as more pithy articles about more nameless people are kept all the time.Brinlong (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited; no other info is encyclopedic — Bellhalla (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weak to non-existent claim to notability. Maybe someday he'll become Vice President of the United States, win a Nobel Prize, or even more, but now, not even close. If someone wants a
    coatrack, they can go down to IKEA and buy one. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Media attention indicates notability. Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is. Merger to Al Gore would be clutter there. Although this article should be kept, the sprained ankle should be edited out. JamesMLane t c 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual and substantial media attention, yes. This? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Has been repeatedly in the press unfortunately and past consensus has been to keep and there is no substantial new reason to rethink it. James' comment above that "Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is" may be relevant- if the media pays attention to something that can make it notable even if we would rather something not be notable. Note that this case is distinct from the recent case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Nicholas Hilton‎ since Al Gore III has been in the news on multiple occasions. I'm also a bit annoyed at the repeated attempts to delete this article despite the prior consensus to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. The term coatrack is a neologism for an article that uses the notability criteria to establish a precedent for being kept, but then expresses unencyclopedic, non-notable information about the subject that would otherwise not be includable. So, I am sure that you would agree that not every (or even many) people who get arrested for drunk driving and have the charges dismissed as part of an agreement to attend some alcohol counseling would warrant an article in wikipedia. But this person's such experience has been included. Why? Because we think people who get a DWI then accept counseling should have this published? No, because we want to discredit the person, or in this case, his father. Or perhaps we just think it is sensational when these things happen to the relatives of famous people. This individual is not a willing public figure... he's no Paris Hilton, no Britney Spears. He can't escape all of his misadventures being covered in tabloids and other media, because his father is famous. His father is not famous because of him, and he is not famous because of his drinking, drug use, or broken ankle. But we have made an article about his drinking, drug use and broken ankle. Why, because his father is famous. We have absolutely zero encyclopedic information in this article about him. It is a coatrack, and every drug use coat, arrest coat, broken bone coat, breakup with a girlfriend coat, etc will get hung here. If there was an article in the Washington Post about canine heart disease and it said this is not a problem only with poor people's dogs, but even rich people have dogs with heart disease, and it said "Anna Kornikova's Bonsai Doberman-Pinscher, Genie, is a good example of that."[1] Would you expect to write the Genie (dog) article and put down every time the dog pees on the carpet or shits in public? This article is exactly that. Al Gore III has pissed on his share of carpets and shit on enough lawns that we could write about it, but in the end he is just some famous person's dog. JERRY talk contribs 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, have no desire to discredit Al Gore III or his father, but feel obliged to include in an article about a notable individual the events for which he was noted. I don't understand the need for toilet metaphors when making a point in an AfD discussion. Robert K S (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toilet metaphors were not used for shock value, not to demean the position of any other editor's comment. It is a simplified example used to separate the specific subject from my argument, and I think most people who read it can do so without vomiting. Sorry if you are not in that "such people" category. I don't tiptoe on eggshells. JERRY talk contribs 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you describe it, your concern doesn't seem to be
WP:NPF. There aren't any coats (tangential topics) - it's more a privacy issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
They are actually very closely related, and niether is acceptable, so perhaps it is not so important to purely classify it for the purposes of this AfD. The coatrack essay says this: "Coatrack articles can be born... accidentally through unintended excessive focus on some part of the nominal subject. Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable." I think that truly applies here. Where is the positive information? Why are we making this guy out to be a real loser druggy miscreant nuiance to society? Perhaps to discredit Al Gore, and by extension to discredit that for which he stands? Perhaps. But it is more likely a good faith effort to make an article, that unfortunately does not have any balancing content, because the subject is inherantly non-notable, and the only coverage he gets is negative, because that's what is sensational. JERRY talk contribs 21:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this person's sister
Karenna Gore Schiff. She seems no more notable and yet is attracting no AFDs. The excessive attempts to remove only the negative aspects of the Gore family coverage does not indicate NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, you asked me to consider
Karenna Gore Schiff. She is an author with a published book on 9 historical women. Her book has received wide coverage in a neutral critical way.[2] She has expressed her political views publicly, and they have been the object of controversy. She was responsible for bringing controversial feminist author Naomi Wolf into her father's campaign, causing him a flurry of embarrassment. She personally spoke at the democratic national convention,[3] and was one of two people who personally nominated her father for president at it. She was the head of Gorenet, and as such, received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. Her father's campaign employed her as the official liasion to generation-x, and this was mentioned numerous times during the campaign. There has been wide speculation that she may enter politics herself.[4] She also has written articles for Newsweek, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, and Harper's Bazaar. Bookreporter.com interviewed her. [5] She has been a paid public speaker.[6] [7] Her own policital views have been analyzed in a context separate from her father's office or candidacy.[8] Her 2-page article in Glamour has caused turmoil among people her age.[9] She was interviewed for a half hour segnent of Larry King Live[10]. So I guess I am disinclined to acquiesce to your suggestion that this person is non-notable, and therefore represents a wikipedia conspiracy that you suggest I am a major proponent of, to rid Wikipedia of non Gore-friendly content and to promote Gore-cruft. I'd say your point is baseless. JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You misunderstand my point. I do not say that she is not notable - I think that she is. My point is that her notability is comparable in scale with that of Al Gore III. In both cases, this notability springs from their association with the Gore dynasty and their father in particular. In such dynasties, notability is inherited and the point is generally acknowledged in the case of royalty. In the USA, the equivalent of royalty is such dynasties as the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Gores. The black sheep of these families are objects of public interest and it is quite reasonable that we should cover them for this reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karenna Gore Schiff's notability is based on her authorship of a book and other works, not on the bare fact of her parentage. Your naked assertion to the contrary has no force. The claim that wikipedia should cover black sheep simply because they are blacksheep is likewise without referable to wikipedia policy. In addition, to assert that Gore III's errors are notable simply because they are errors is circular. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The delete argument always goes around in circles: he's non-notable because the article contains negative content because he's non-notable. The keep argument is straightforward: this individual is notable (i.e., he has been noted) because he has attracted attention as the trouble-prone son of a notable person. The present version of the article doesn't even list his whole record, omitting arrests in 2002 and 2000 that resulted only in citations. These events are usually reported in news articles about Gore, e.g. [89] Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It is not circular logic. It is quite linear. The information in the sources provided describe events and attributes of this person which happen to millions of people (please understand that I am saying that newspaper articles are written about a lot of people who are charged with crimes like DUI and drug possession.) And these millions of people are not written about in wikipedia. Why? Because the information is not the kind of information that defines their notability. It does not matter that we can verify it... heck, it is all true. Being true and being verifiable are not the problem. The problem is that they are not details we commonly write about a person. If we had valid reasons other than this material to have this person's article here, then we would probably be remiss to not include this information. But absent any valid reason to have this person here, we just have a smear article. It is by no means balanced. The events we cover are probably a sum total of 1000 minutes of this person's life. They are the only 1000 minutes we know anything about, because he is non-notable. So, of the 2.5 Million minutes of this person's awaken adult life, we are taking 1000 of them and effectively saying "this is what this guy is about". Or more eloquently, we are saying he is the "trouble-prone son of a notable person", based on 0.04% of his actual life. That is substantially imbalanced. Whether some other Gore articles need to be deleted or not, I do not know; I did not look at any. Might be a good idea to actually do that. We'll see, after this article is deleted. JERRY talk contribs 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people don't have their busts run on the AP wire. The arguments you're making have been made 7 times before, and each time in the past not enough editors have bought into them. Robert K S (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Thank-you! They have been made 7 times before because they were right. And change, she is a beautiful thing. JERRY talk contribs 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting logic. Not only were the arguments made 7 times before, they failed 7 times before. If an article is deleted, it usually does not come back later for people to discuss whether the consensus has "changed", because there is nothing to discuss. If it is kept, of course, then it can be renominated seven times or more until someone gets a "beautiful" result. I think we all know that the AfD process doesn't work both ways. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that is a naive statement. Deleted articles are only
WP:NPOV). Editors who do not want to create the new article themselves can also go to AfC and request help writing it. If they feel that there is valid reason to just undelete the article that used to exist without recreating it, they can put in a request to have it restored or userfied at DRV. And if the new article still does not meet the inclusion criteria, there are always other alternatives
.
Let's not mischaracterize the last AfD. It was closed as "no consensus". It is standard, normal, usual, and customary for such closures to result in renomination approximately six months later.
"Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." (-
WP:CCC)JERRY talk contribs 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you just crossed the line with that remark, Jerry. How dare you accuse me or anyone else on here of being "naive". I think you've insulted enough people that you need a more official reminder of what it means to be civil. Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we come from different parts of the English-speaking world, and our understanding of the term "naive", and its social implications, might be different. First of all I did not say that you were naive. I said that the statement you made was naive. There is a big difference between those two phrases. In the former, I would have been making a personal remark about you and your experience. In the latter (the one I did actually say) I was referring only to the statement that you made. Even a highly sophistocated, experienced and intelligent person can make an intentionally-naive statement for a variety of reasons. In the sense that I used it, naive means "deficient in informed judgment", and refers to the fact that your statement appeared to neglect all of the options available to editors who wish to create an article after one has been deleted. I elucidated these options in my statement. You were referring to the deletion process as being one-sided, and implied that keep closures were temporary and delete closures were permanent. I thought that the statement you made was in that way, naive. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect editors to change their minds from time to time, certainly. Why not? rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on any of the previous ones (that I can recall), its not a matter of changing everyone's mind. We have thousands of active editors, only 5-20 participate in an average AFD debate. Mr.Z-man 08:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:ATTACK. Seems like the only reason the article exists is to defame him. I'm not proud of what he has done, but if hes done nothing else, we can't have a one-topic biography. MrPrada (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - the only notable thing he has done is get a
    Prius. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Cumulus Clouds. Will (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments in like four or five other nominations of this article. Gore III is not, in and of himself, notable. He has only attracted media attention as a result of his birth. Can you imagine what this place would look like if we had an article for every kid who smoked pot and got a ticket? The trend toward having (mildly defamatory) articles on the non-notable children of notable politicians is something that needs to change. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That example is a good illustration of why redirection to
    Jeb Bush, Jr. article apparently still exists (blue link) and if you click on it, you then go to an article called Jeb Bush. At first sight, this might be the person in question, and you need to remember to double-check who's who to sort out which generation the article and name refers to. Since there are apparently at least three Al Gores, it's even worse in that case. Please remember that the articles are to be read by people who don't know all this background to start with. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree that is a problem. I updated the wikilink for the redirect at
Jeb Bush, Jr. redirects here; information about that person can be found in the "family" section of this article."Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

  1. ^ celebripets.com
  2. ^ Washington Post
  3. ^ cnn
  4. ^ USA Weekend
  5. ^ Bookreporter.com
  6. ^ Boston Public Library
  7. ^ Columbia University Website
  8. ^ Salon.com
  9. ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23567 WorldNet Daily]
  10. ^ CNN
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_20&oldid=1081103822"