Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 5

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

The result was delete per

ENERGIA EOLICA - LA OTRA CARA

ENERGIA EOLICA - LA OTRA CARA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Blatant opinion piece. Belongs on the editorial page of a newspaper, not in an encyclopedia. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as personal essay, entirely lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic even in the slightest sense. Kakofonous (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I translated it from Spanish. And I think I've done good work, because I've seen it is an opinion. HARD DELETE! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an essay -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 6 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

Todd Karr

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

Biography of a magician and publisher written by user:Toddkarr. Is he noatable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator, Toddkarr, just blanked the page, and in the edit summary, requested that it be deleted.--Nkrosse (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per creator request. Pairadox (talk) 02:24, 8 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.

Marcel Vezina

A local politician with no significant news coverage thereby failing the standard set by

I'm not sure how to "link" paper article/microfiche to this wiki page!!!??? Can anyone please help? I'm fairly new at this Wiki posting. Wikimike123 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but what kind of news coverage was it? Any mayor is going to be mentioned in the local paper because he is in charge of the town. Did he get national news coverage for doing something particularly innovative or something particualrly rotten? Indrian (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a personal page, no sources Logastellus (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again instead of disputing that there is no sources (because its not on the net), how do you bring to the net any national article that are on microfiche but not on the net?? There was many regional and national newspaper article that covered his exploits.Wikimike123 (talk) 8:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Per

• COMMENTto the author: I have cleaned up the article (cosmetically). The subject still needs to have notability. Find references (in English...this is the Englsih Wiki) and third-party citations of notability and I will find a suitable place to put it.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with encouraging note at Wikimike's talk. Franamax (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability established. Being former mayor of a small town is not enough. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:08, 13 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, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate

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

This article functions as a POV fork for an issue already sufficiently addressed in the article 2007 New England Patriots season. It functions as a sink for criticism of the team over a relatively minor incident that is sufficiently covered in the main article. This article is not necessary. Eleven Special (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also covered in article Bill Belichick. Eleven Special (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hmm....I don't think this should be "swept under the rug". It's a good article, and it details the incident much better than the entry in the season article. As a major issue involving cheating in the
  NFL, I'd say this merits inclusion. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• speedy keep - This just survived an AfD under the name Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spygate_incident_(American_football) less than two weeks ago. The article must have been moved and renominated. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It was all over the news, and now Goodell will testify before the Senate. As much as the hurt Patriot fans would like it to go away, Spygate is about to expand. There is no reason to delete, no exclude it from the "Culture" section of the Patriots template. Zeality (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Look at the references—clearly this article has enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The last two sentances make me question, is this a
  WP:POINT nomination? This article is not necessary if we wish to bury truth and justice. seems like someone has another motive. Forgive me if i'm mistaken. (Full disclosure I voted delete on the first AFD, but I understand conensus went the other way and I respect the community's choice.)--Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I noticed that too after voting. Seems like a bad joke. Torc2 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original nomination text was maliciously vandalized by an anon before anyone else commented.[3] I've restored my original text. Eleven Special (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That explains it. Didn't think to check the history.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be notable independently of the single season in which it occurred. Maxamegalon2000 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per discussion two weeks ago. You can't just nominate and nominate and nominate until you get the result you want. I'm surprised this was even discussed once...much less twice. --Smashville^BONK! 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically notice is posted on the talk page that the article was reviewed under AfD. There is no template there and I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. If there was I probably would not have nominated it a second time. While I still stand by my position that I feel this article on this topic is redundant due to the topic's inclusion in two other articles, and only serves as a sink for negative criticism and bashers of the New England Patriots, I would not oppose an admin speedy closing this. Eleven Special (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize...my response definitely wasn't too
      WP:CIVIL...which is why you don't get on WP first thing in the morning after sitting up most of the night with tornado warnings...but I stand by the speedy close... --Smashville^BONK! 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep Although I originally wrote this article, I do not see any anti-Patriots POV. I think the article is well-sourced, and it also presents an overview of the Jets' involvement. Please offer proof that this article is a "sink for criticism" of the New England Patriots. I will make necessary changes, but I do not think this article should be deleted. Spygate is noteworthy; the Patriots were not the only team involved in the scandal. By the way, your characterization of Spygate as "relatively minor" is definitely POV: it is not supported by the facts. I'm not against the Patriots, but this incident has become exceptionally notable in sports and the NFL. CVW (Talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may consider the opinion that the incident was relatively minor as POV, but when weighing the worthyness of an article it is perfectly acceptable to express your POV. In defense of my view I have to ask: have there been any major changes to the way the NFL does business or conducts its rules because of this incident? Would it be on par with other sports incidents like the Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens doping scandals? Or the Black Sox scandal? I think the attention this has gotten in the media is out of proportion with the consequences of the actual event. If there are Congressional hearings on this matter and there are overarching rule changes or laws enacted, then I would say that there would be a place for a separate article. But just because the sports media and bloggers get hot and bothered about something doesn't mean that we have to regurgitate it in the encyclopedia. As for a rationale for deletion, there was already consensus on avoiding "Criticism of X" articles. IMO, this article is just another version of that beast. Eleven Special (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not going to rehash what went on in the previous AfD. However, I can see where the nominator is coming from. This article was originally created to centralize and expand information dealing with the specific instance. But when every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighs in on this article with a published quote, and when other "rumors" and "development" of varying substance gets thrown in, it does become a "sink for criticism." If any prominent figure has something to say about this, it goes into this article. If there are more accusations, rumblings, and affects (i.e. opinion on what it means to legacies, etc.), it goes into this article. There is certainly a tendency for this article to drift away from encyclopedic into the realm of blog or message board, or "log" of opinions and rumors. Pats1 ^T/C 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is significant enough a topic that it should be kept separate, especially because its timeline is sufficiently long enough not to be easily covered within the aforementioned 2007 New England Patriots season article, at least without losing some of the content. I agree that there are some POV issues, but the article and subject seem significant enough--especially given Congress' new interest in the matter--to warrant keeping the article. Kevin Smith (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep this page. Deleting this page would be like a member of the RNC deleting the Watergate page. Just stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) — 129.6.154.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Article is valid and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.96.226 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — 96.226.96.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep but create a link in the Bill Belechick bio to a seperate chapter on "Spygate" linking to the page in question. NoseNuggets (talk)10:51 AM US EST Feb 8 2008

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

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

1996 in Australian television

1996 in Australian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete; The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Even though an article, for the mere fact of it being a list, does not make it encyclopedic, it would depend on what the list is about.

Also, does the inclusion of a group of articles on the years in television history mean there will also be others about American television history by year? Mexican television by year? Russian television by year? And what events on television would be notable enough to include in the articles? Technically, anything that's past is historical, but would news be notable enough? If the Oscars are included, does that mean Premio Lo Nuestro is too due to the fact that is one of the most anticipated Spanish-speaking shows throughout the year by Latinos, though not by english speaking people, in the United States? Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't watch television - not interested in television, ..... but articles of this type have precedent. The alternative would be to merge with year in Australia articles, which for the content in this article would be feasible, ie merge to 1996 in Australia and/or to 1996 in television - the latter I suspect is US biased and could be renamed 1996 in US television - I have no difficulty with articles on Mexican or Russian television. I note that 1996 in television is quite lengthy already.--Matilda ^talk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    1966-67 United States network television schedule would seem to indicate that there are indeed articles about US television programming by year.--Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I am not sure in the nomination the point of the comment The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Red links and stubs are both OK on Wikipedia and neither are reasons to delete. Lists are also OK. Note that notability guidelines do not limit content of lists except when it comes to people - see
    WP:NNC. I have not been able to find a specific guidleline for television but there is a comprehensive wikiproject and perhaps they can shed more light.--Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of these "19XX in Australian television" articles were deleted recently because they contained no content apart from the navbox and that's fair enough, however if there is sustainable content I see no reason to delete the article. As Matilda says, stubs and lists are fine and articles are not required to contain prose. If you look at the more recent articles such as
  WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Canley (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge While 2007 in Australian television may generate sufficient interest and content due to its recency, it's harder to imagine that either of say 1981 in Australian television or 1982 in Australian television would progress much beyond stubs. This suggests perhaps Australian television in the 1980s might be a more sensible aggregation, with similar articles for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even the 1990s. Murtoa (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I, along with Allied45 have been working on both 2007 in Australian television and 2008 in Australian television with the intent of creating an entire series of articles right back to 1956 when television was first broadcast in Australia. We are still deciding on the format, structure and content before completely rolling these out. The reason for these articles, as correctly pointed out by Matilda above, is the Year in television articles are in essence Year in Amercian television. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should also point out that to supplement the main Year in Australian television articles, there are also Category:Year in Australian television, Category:Year Australian television series debuts and Category:Year Australian television series endings. So for last year, there is Category:2007 in Australian television, Category:2007 Australian television series debuts and Category:2007 Australian television series endings. These have all been created and I am in the process of populating these categories which well help me in forming the main articles. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As mentioned above, I have been working hard, alongside Ianblair23, to create a series of articles relating to Years in Australian television. Sure, this page hasn't took off yet, but it can be called a stub, and editors can have the oppurtunity to add what relevant content that they wish. I'll also like to point out that as well as 2007 in Australian television, there are also articles for Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. -- Allied45 (talk) 09:25, 8 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 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenae Rubin

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

Notability criteria not met. Appears to be advertising. Boson (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam / self-promotion -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find anything suggesting she meets the notability criteria, and the article is certainly strongly promotional in tone.--
  talk) 04:46, 12 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McDermott

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

The entry is redundant, since a McDermott disambiguation entry already exists. Users of Wikipedia who are looking for a McDermott without knowing for sure McDermott's first name should be able to also find the James McDermotts in the disambiguation page. If the McDermott entry is already too large, the entry for James McDermott in it could lead to a second disambiguation page, for James McDermotts only. But it's not helpful having two separate entries; we should not presume people always know exactly what they're looking for. The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The situation described (having these listings at a two-name dab page and at the surname dab) is not unusual at all; have a glance at Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. I suppose many of the two-name dabs could be redirected to the surname dab, but that would be a major change in how we have handled these pages and I am not convinced that there is any strong advantage to changing the precedent. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paul Erik. Disambigs are cheap and there's absolutely no reason to get rid of this. The McDermott surname page is unusually large for a disambig right now and this presents an advantage to the user who only cares about those with the survey who are named James. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. When it comes to finding aids, redundancy is a good thing. --
  talk) 22:59, 10 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, since it had no salvageable encyclopedic content. Mukadderat (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarnished Gold

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

)

• Redirect to
  WP:FICT. Jfire (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs work but it is a notable book. Snowman (talk) 17:31, 9 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenaga Sayaw

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

A goofle search returns Wiki and lots of copies of the article's text, but no actual information about the art. Travellingcari (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because like the above, there's very little in any language that's not Wiki or a Wiki mirror.:

Tovak Kali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Travellingcari (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if this were a kata by two countries, there would be more online mentions. I've never heard martial arts practice as Tenaga Sayaw here in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even its version in WikiPilipinas questions its notability. Seems like it's a term used by a school of martial arts in Cavite (see here). Starczamora (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, 7 ghits excluding WP. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for Tovak Kali which I see has been added since my comments...marginally adequate number of ghits though wholly unsourced. JJL (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN possible advert. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for Tovak Kali (the first one is for Tenaga Sayaw so I am not double voting), no hits on Philippine news, Google news, Google scholar, Google and Google books. Also notability seems to be confined in Cavite which means this hasn't spread nationwide yet.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 6 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

Fletcher Field Strength

Fletcher Field Strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. Google returns no hits. gb ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a hoax per total lack of hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it is an SI unit but Google is silent, there is a fairly good chance that it is a hoax. Kakofonous (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the claim is that it is an SI base unit which it is not since these are the SI base units. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete made up unit, given references in the article do not support the existence of the unit. --Salix alba (talk) 18:16, 6 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. Any merge discussion should be taken to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online skill-based game

Online skill-based game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is basically unreferenced, with misused references that don't establish notability. Should be deleted, or merged into Online gambling, or a mention of competing for money in the Game of skill article. Also concerned that this is just an excuse to pimp lots of online gaming sites, many of which are redlinked. Anitpatel (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Weak Merge with Online gambling. The actual industry term in common use is "Skill gaming", so the article is mis-named. The subject is notable enough for its own article, but the article as it stands now needs cleanup. Needing cleanup isn't a valid reason for deletion though. If we deleted every article that might be used to pimp other sites, we wouldn't have any articles left, so that's not a valid deltion reason either. Rray (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have some references to support that? I think that's half the reason I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. A rename might make it easier to establish notability. But if no one can do that, we should delete or merge this article. Anitpatel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search for "skill gaming" brings back almost 80,000 results, so references probably exist. (A Google News search only brings back 16 results though, but that's still a significant number for something that's "non-notable".) I don't have specific references to add, nor do I have the time at the moment to clean up the article myself. (The wife is away and I have to take care of three children tonight.) Rray (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This also raises concerns about
        WP:neologism. That's one more reason this should be condensed to a quick mention in online gambling. Anitpatel (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Being a neologism isn't a reason for deletion either. Rray (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Case that this article is policy-noncompliant hasn't been made. Article could use cleanup but that's not a reason to AFD it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or Merge and Redirect into a separate section of Online game, which this is really just a fork of; the games are the same, only the chance to win money is different. Black Kite 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much to great potential content to merge. No evidence of spam so far, though that wouldnt be reason to delete in any case, just to watchlist.DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, or merge. I agree this a non-notable fork from Online gambling, or possibly Game of skill, but since most of these games are driven by web based advertising, I would suggest the former is a better merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge topic seems to have the required minimum references for WP:N, but I share the nominator's concern about the article being used as a farm for redlinks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge. Limited notability. Best fit with an article on online gambling. Ludologist12 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a suitable article (Online game would be my choice). One can find coverage which discusses "online games of skill" or specific instances thereof, but I'm not convinced the subject is discussed in sufficient generality to justify a separate article yet. --Sturm 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid, referenced, verifiable, clearly separable topic. Mukadderat (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—references establish notability. Concerns about spam seem excessive. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus as of Feb 14:I still don't see how the advocates for "keeping" have established even one valid reference about "online skill-based games". There's one article from about.com that talks about competing for money online, but no explicit mention of the concept in this article. And another white paper about how to make money off of games, which I'm concerned isn't even a valid reference. The purpose of a white paper is (quote from wikipedia page) "designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products as it relates to the issue or topic examined". This is the epitome of WP:SPAM.
• These two references (one that doesn't mention the concept, and one that is not reliable) are not enough.
• Still, it looks like there is a decent consensus for a merge. People are split about deletion. But of the 11 contributors to this page, 7 would have stated they agree with a merge, and the remaining four don't appear to be against it. I understand this isn't a vote, but we may be able to extract a consensus here. A merge keep the information, and delete the "online skill-based game" article, which is a decent compromise. Anitpatel (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to your contention, the about.com reference is about the subject of this article. As for the white paper, any number of organizations, commercial and noncommercial, issue white papers. This one is from

  IGDA, a nonprofit industry association which the article does not promote in any way. Spacepotato (talk) 18:49, 14 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: all verifiable geolocations are for wikipedia by common decision. Mukadderat (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justo daract

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

)

• Move to Justo Daract, Argentina and put a {{cleanup}} tag on it (so tagged for cleanup). Google maps turns it up as a real location. Looks like an article that somebody started and never got around to finishing up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clean up and move to Justo Daract (I'm okay if Justo Daract, Argentina is preferred). All towns are notable and this one with thousands of people is quite sizable. --Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 6 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 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massimiliano Tagliani

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

Youth player, not yet a professional Matthew_hk tc 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also put them on AFD

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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Matthew_hk tc 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All fail
  WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all. Fail
  WP:BIO and unsourced to even suggest now otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all, all fail WP:FOOTY notability criteria, recreate when/if they ever make an appearance for the 1st team, King of the NorthEast 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. All these football players could be appropriately listed there.TheYellowCabin (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable Logastellus (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet notable --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworking for Women

Woodworking for Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been discussed in an XfD discussion in 2005. No improvement since the last deletion discussion. Article tagged for speedy but only eligible for AfD. Procedural nomination. --VS ^talk 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is stagnant, Magazine does not exist and the external link takes you to a craft site. Found this with a search - ceased publication with the October/November 2006 issue. I Agree with Deletion ♫Slysplace | ^talk 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete something nonverifiabe notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:39, 13 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Grammar School

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

)

Speedy declined and the person removed some of the unencyclopedic content, however there is still nothing notable about this school. Travellingcari (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep School is a specialist school in Maths and Computing. Also has recently received The Sportsmark 2007/8 award. Paste (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It is notable for being one of the few surviving grammar schools - there are only 164 grammar schools left in the whole of England. This one also has a history going back to the 1800s. Dahliarose (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After a few quick searches I've now discovered that Salt Grammar School is a historically important school. A whole book has been written about it which will be a valuable source for further expansion if anyone local has access to it. The school was founded by Sir Titus Salt as a factory school for the children of the model village of Saltaire which is now a World Heritage Site. Despite its name it no longer appears to be a grammar school.

• Keep - historic grammar school. Plenty of sources available from which the page can be expanded and which meet
  talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I didn't think schools were inherently notable, even though Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is just a proposal. My nomination stemmed from the fact that I could find no evidence of 2nd party coverage that doesn't concern an event at the school. Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - events at the school are fine when covered in reliable sources. Even in your search there are several significant references which, taken with Dahliarose's research, incontrovertibly meet
  talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. For UK schools you should search on www.google.co.uk and confine the search to the UK. There are also UK-specific sources listed at WP Schools. A search at COPAC or Google Books would have told you about the published history. Dahliarose (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply fair enough, but that wouldn't have helped much for news in this case. You guys have done a good job cleaning it up since I met it, I'll give you that. I'm curious what these UK-specific sources are is this the schools proposal you're speaking of? I'd obviously not have nominated it if I thought it met the criteria. I'm probably missing what defines it as notable Travellingcari (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very odd. I'm getting pages and pages of results here. There are lots of source links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Any school of this age will inevitably have plenty of sources available, even if they're not online. Dahliarose (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web v. Google News, got the difference now. I default to News first in order to directly find ~60-80%% (depending on article subject) of the reliable sources for most articles. When nothing shows in a local/national/int'l newspaper, then I trifle more in Web searches for something that might pass for reliable. I know the sources in Project School, I was looking at the proposed guidelines which say, A school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage[1] in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the school itself. 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.[2] and while I agree there *should* be a ton of sources on a 100+ year old school, there haven't proved to be that many that meet WP:RS. But it looks like I'm outvoted here, I can live with that. Travellingcari (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole book on the history of a school is significant coverage and is a reliable secondary source. It can hardly be described as trivial. The sources available online are only the tip of the iceberg. It is also worth searching separately on Google Books. Dahliarose (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as school with such a long history should be able to satisfy notability. Potential to expand and currently a valid stub.

Sting au Buzz Me... 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary schools are part of wikiproject schools. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 9 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. Deleted by

Sidewalk superintendent

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

This was apparently transwikied a year ago, but it's still here. It's unclear from the comment later on the talk page and the history whether it came back or why, but it's still here. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with it, so I brought it here since I don't think it's encyclopedic and it's a neologism/dicdef at best Travellingcari (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete
  A5, tagged. Jfire (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Not a neologism. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sidewalk%20superintendent gives a date of 1940. --Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ok so it's still a dictionary definition that was previously transwikied. It doesn't need to be here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 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. Canley (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up Already

Shut Up Already (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete; NN song. Fails

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

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

NBC Slogans

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

Full of

• Merge into List of NBC slogans. You're right, we don't need two - so why not just have one that combines both? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I created this page because each of the slogans pages were up for AfD thanks to Gladys but the information was too much to be merged into the NBC article. Someone else is welcome to merge this stuff into the List of NBC slogans page, but I've paid my dues for this issue. —  X  S  G  22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've left a comment for XSG; I didn't realize this was an effort to solve the problem rather than a separate problem of its own. My mistake, and as penance, I'll take care of the merge.
    Gladys J Cortez 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: it can be both, really... an attempt to solve a problem can become a problem in its own rights. It should be merged with the List of NBC slogans. —  X  S  G  15:49, 8 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 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman David Roussell

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

9 month old orphaned COI resume dump by entirely non-notable businessman. Travellingcari (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable in the least. Jfire (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable orphaned
  conflict of interest. Doczilla (talk) 01:02, 8 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 as blatant copyvio with no salvageable text within the article. nancy ^(talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network of European Active Citizens

Network of European Active Citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable organization. A total of six Google hits - and two of those are in Wikipedia and two are related to NEAC. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - the main part of the article is copied directly from their website. Tagging as a copyvio-- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 6 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:A7. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rannachan

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

There is absolutely no evidence that this psychic is in any way notable. Travellingcari (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7, tagged. Jfire (talk) 21:58, 5 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; nicely cleaned up and referenced by Paul Erik.--

Dylan Rice

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

Asserts some importance, but seems non-notable

• There have been non-trivial mentions of Dylan Rice in
  WP:N. I've added those references just now. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Paul Erik. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Goode

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

Contested prod, original reason was "Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league - fails

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.  Jhony   16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails
  WP:BIO#Athletes and the attention from reliable sources is made irrelavant by this. Sean Thomas (English footballer) should also be deleted for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Number57, I left a reply for you on the project talk page: [11] :)  Jhony   17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both fail football notability criteria. If/when they make their professional debut they can be recreated King of the NorthEast 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable footballer. Come back when/if he makes a fully professional league appearance. - fchd (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Is the role of the secondary criteria to replace the primary criteria over the field they cover, to supplement it, by providing an alternative justification, or to add to it be requiring that both they and the publication criteria be met. as far as i can tell the official line is that they merely act as a shorthand for predicting whether the primary criterion is overwhelmingly likely or not to be met. If they are merely predictive, then an article with 2 RSs discussing his putative career would stand regardless of whether he ever actually played a game in any league at all. There is however only one source at present, but there would probably be another, and then he would be notable. Personally, I think that's nonsense, and the correct view is that they replace the primary criterion. Does that have general acceptance? Or is it only in sports that they replace it?
    • Well, WP:BIO says as it's base criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". That surely overrides everything else. Either someone is notable or not. You can't be notable from one rule. and then become unnotable again from another. But I don't think it applies yet. John Hayes^talk 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:BIO. Prod shouldn't have been contested. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete currently fails
  WP:FOOTY, but if more second party sources are added I will change my vote. John Hayes^talk 20:16, 11 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 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Flint

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

On Google, there are very few sites about him. Not referenced. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems notable from what I can see. He was notable enough for the

New York Times to feature his obituary -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep – Quite a few articles from the
  New York Times say in the area of at least (40) as shown here [12]. In addition, multiple other articles both in the US and internationally as shown here [13]. Shoessss |  Chat  16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep—ACBL (Am Contract Bridge Lge) Encyclopedia entry for Flint fully justifies his inclusion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - definitely notable having played for hist country in the Bermuda Bowl. The number of websites about someone is not a very reliable indicator. JH (talk page) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Flint was a leading player of a well known card game that is widely played all over the world. He has even played bridge on TV. Viewfinder (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Number of Google search results should not have been used as a rationale for deletion, particularly for someone who died in 1989! Even then, did you check Google Books? Unreferenced articles should probably be deleted if it's clear such references are not going to be forthcoming, but it's a bit unfair to nominate an article four minutes after its creation rather than just tagging it as needing references and allowing a day or two for the article to be fixed up and referenced to its current state, which I'm sure you'll agree is fine. --Canley (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From what I have seen on Google, he seems pretty notable (I'm not an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong...) — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability looks good. Doczilla (talk) 01:10, 8 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, fails

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

)

Delete this has been unsourced for 1.5 years and reads like a personal essay and OR. I am not sure that anyone can come up with any streamlined meaningful universally agreed upon definition of true self much less a coherent encyclopedic article about its significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the abstract concept of "true self" has been studied in psychology -- that is, the question of whether there is such an animal and what might be a means to discover it. There's a close relationship to consciousness, of course. There are sourceable religious aspects as well. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. Perhaps this stub would benefit mostly at present from being stubbified further; but the concept seems to be easily widespread enough to support an article. If deleted, it should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unsourced or not, I believe that this could make a valuable encyclopedic entry. I dont have the knowledge to make it 'up to standard' but that is not to say that it wont ever be. The AfD process is to weed out the articles that wont ever be encyclopedic, this one will be. And the article does not have to be a 'universally agreed upon definition', that would be a editwar begging to happen. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After all this time, it's still not an article. Regardless of originality of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Self (spirituality)) when we could consolidate their information and become closer to having one full-fledged article. -Silence (talk) 04:18, 8 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Even though the second title is still not reliably sourced, we can move it later if need be. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) and A Day in the Death

Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Day in the Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Double nomination. The episode titles are currently unsourced. "Several websites" was named as a source, but even those have conflicting information. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Official confirmation of the title of the episode currently labelled "Dead Man Walking" will come from the BBC within the next week. So it's probably best to wait and see what they say before deciding whether to delete this page. Alberon (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - DWM 392 is out on the 7th, and will probably give the remaining titles, so we'll see then.
  StuartDD _{contributions} 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. If the episode titles change, then it's easy enough to move the articles, however note both episodes are scheduled to air within the next 4 weeks, therefore firm indication of their titles should be available very soon if not already. 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I removed the previous prod tag from both of these because they are already tagged as upcoming episodes and therefore subject to change. If something changes, deal with it then. Not sure why this would go to Afd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. If there was some doubt of the existence of these episodes, then fine. But there are multiple confirmation that all 13 episodes of Torchwood Series 2 will air, so even if the articles were simply called "Episode 11" or whatever, they would be viable. If the titles end up changing, then the articles can be renamed in about 10 seconds. 23skidoo (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's not on Outpost Gallifrey, it doesn't exist Will ^(talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good grief, Keep. It comes from HDnet's online program guide. The information was taken down pretty soon after it went up, but not before it was mirrored everywhere. Aderack (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if they're not BBC-confirmed titles, then why on Earth are they on Wikipedia? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move if the titles change for some reason.
  ^{round of applause} 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, keep, keep - There is simply no good reason to remove information such as this. It should be verifiable soon enough, weeks before it airs. Keep it around for another 10 days or so, at the very least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Plenty of sources provide the names -- e.g., tv.com.[14] Doczilla (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Radio Times website now has the listing for episode 7 and the title given for the episode is "Dead Man Walking" [15]. Given that the Radio Times is published by a subsidiary of the the BBC, I think that can be considered an official source. Alberon (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Keep - First title now sourced by Radio Times.
  StuartDD _{contributions} 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - as per above. 84.70.190.214 (talk) 23:26, 7 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 then redirect to Diamond (rapper) as recreated content. --Nlu (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Music

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

Completing unfinished nom by

• Oops. My bad. This article has been deleted repetedly and reposted (with no improvement/changes) by the same user. Please delete, with salt.
  talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt, repeated re-creation of non-notable mixtape; a search for sources turned up nothing, and mixtapes aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My !vote is in no way biased by my procedural completion of this nomination on the nominator's behalf. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – LOL getting a little paranoid there Ten Pound Hammer :-). Agree with nominator. Shoessss |  Chat  17:15, 5 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 to

South Pointe Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Merge/redirect - 1) "California Distinguished School" probably doesn't meet the proposed guidelines in
  Reliable sources. It also falls short of meeting any of the other proposed Primary or Alternate criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Merge/redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District as suggested in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Merge per twins, above. I clearly can't think for myself. ;) CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to
  talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Per WP:SCHOOL I think the redirect is a good solution. meshach (talk) 20:25, 7 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

India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress

India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as blatant

• Speedy delete. In addition to POV pushing, the page is a copy of http://user.wangjianshuo.com/UmaShankar.htm. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 5 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 as obvious hoax Gwernol 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemony cricket

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

I don't remember this character, and apparently neither does Google. If he/she does exist, then I suspect that they are a stunningly minor character with no sources that attest to their notability or importance.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - G7, blanked by author. Hut 8.5 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam James Spencer

Liam James Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable amateur bowls player. Has possibly won an U18 singles title in Leicestershire, but I cannot find anything online to back this up, or indeed anything on this particular competition, which leads me to believe it may be non-notable. Additionally, "Liam James Spencer" in Google turns up nothing except this article, and various other permutations of his name only pick up an artist by the same name in Leicestershire.

Either he's a non-notable amateur bowls player, or, based on the tone of the article and utter lack of supporting material, it's possibly a hoax.

• Note to Admin: The article, aside from the AFD notice, has been blanked by the original author. This should be a Speedy Delete as author requested. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 6 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 per previous consensus of the related Lists (missed nom). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary and crossover baritones

List of contemporary and crossover baritones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of contemporary and crossover bass-baritones (and other similar lists nominated therein). This article should probably have been included in that AFD at the time... Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the nominator of the other lists. I simply didn't catch this one. AniMate 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does no good. Punkmorten (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is a "crossover baritone"? The Transhumanist 18:28, 12 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Zoo (film)

New York Zoo (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This film article is a suspected

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  notability guidelines for films. No verifiable coverage exists on this production either way; it should go. Steve ^{T • C} 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No IMDB entry, no Google news coverage – it's a hoax. It would be nigh on impossible for Wilson's name to be attached to any project without some coverage, these days. --Sturm 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 10 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 apparent nom withdrawal (see last comment by Niaz). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Wars (album)

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

Delete as per

• Weak keep This is the new Unwed Sailor album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks. I tried with Google but it didn't return a single page (within first two pages) that supports its existence. Now with the help of your post (taking artist name) I managed some references. But, this album has not been released yet, and will be released on 18 March 2008[16]. I am also in a dilemma (Delete or Weak Keep?). -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean, and while articles for not-yet-released albums tend to be discouraged, I can't see much reason to delete an article which will almost certainly be recreated a month from now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking exactly like you. If we delete this article today, we'll have to create it once again in next month. So, there is no point of deleting such stuff. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:07, 5 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

Mark Moore (writer)

Mark Moore (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Delete no article there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no content there. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:40, 5 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thenginkalbetta

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

Seems to be a nonexistent town, Google (both standard and maps) turns up nothing for this town. Maybe a hoax?

• Delete unless sources can be produced. The article says that this is a hill, not a town. I'm of the opinion that major topographic features are inherently notable, but unless some evidence of the very existence of this hill can be found, the article fails
  WP:V. In addition, its current form is unsuitable because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If it can be sourced, I might support keeping a stubbed version of the article. Deor (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fully in agreement with Deor. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This appears a hoax. Unless this is a misspelling, there's nothing on google. --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails policy
  verifiability. If sources can be found, then it would be a keep as a geographic feature. But there is zero sources that can be found when searching for this name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 6 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.

Lords of Fara

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

This is not a Jacobite title. It isn't in Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage and the books listed as references do not exist Jess Cully (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as probable hoax. Choess (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a completely bogus title, and should be deleted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carruculis (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:49, 11 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 cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place management

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