Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 8 February 10 >

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Plotz

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

Several tiny reasons he might be notable, but I don't think any of them add up to anything. 1) Founded a club with 2000 members. 2) Once interviewed JRR Tolkien. 3) Is a scientist (but has, at my most generous counting, published 7 papers and gotten <20 citations). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:14, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    WP:BLP1E might apply as the only thing that is remotely notable is founding the Tolkien society. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:49, 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 delete.

talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Rope jumping

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

Not notable Ratagonia (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable. Maybe should be a single-sentence comment in
    extreme sports, but not on its own. After a couple months, still this? And a self-referential See Also? Come on now... VigilancePrime (talk) 07:09, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 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 Already deleted. Deleted by another user. Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tillman

Joseph Tillman (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Apparent

notability, G-hits reveal other attempts at self-promotion. Author and IPs repeatedly removing maintenance tags without improving article for over 24 hours. Accurizer (talk) 23:24, 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 I am amazed that nobody used the term

WP:Coatrack. But in the end the majority of the editors here said that the subject of the article has no sources that sufficiently establish his notability, just tangentially mentioning him in the normal way that persons with his local position are mentioned locally, and a DUI charge, which does not consitute notability. Precedent has shown that people who have local structures named after them are not necessarily considered notable in the wikipedia sense, nor are people who are charged with misdemeanor legal infractions. JERRY talk contribs 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hector J. Liendo

AfDs for this article:
Hector J. Liendo (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable, subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. Please Read Basic Criteria on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page. Cheezwzl (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, He is a 16-year JP arrested for drunk driving. Is that common?Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN REWRITTEN SINCE THE EARLY DELETION RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PRESENTED. The JP now has a bridge named after him.Billy Hathorn (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then write a letter to the editor of Laredo Morning Times and don't vote for him. You still haven't read notability guidelines. Some of your articles about Laredo celebrities and politicians are larger than historical figures, and you teach at a University?? Where did you get your degree, at a Degree/Diploma Mill?? Read your talk page (Billy Hathorn talk page) Apparently this is a problem. Cheezwzl (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well referenced facts and seems notable. Also, very uncivil comment above, Cheezwzl.
    round of applause 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "he changes quotes to personal opinions"

Where and when? NOT TRUE. Is there any case other than Judge Roy Bean where a JP would be "notable"?Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, John Fielding. There's more to the world than small-town America. DGG (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The Laredo Morning Times is a reliable source, and the fact that local officials are not automatically notable does not exclude the possibility that notability can be established for some of them. --Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's just a justice of the peace, not even close to satisfying
    WP:BLP1E trumps that without even breaking into a sweat. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • New information added. Please recheck.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article tells us he was one of " three elected officials in Webb County charged with driving while intoxicated between 2006 and 2007." This is not notability, for him or the others. The rest of the article seems, in fact, to be about another local JP also arrested for DWI, and general information about the extent of the jurisdiction of JPs in Texas, which seems to be mainly truancy cases.
  • delete I mean, c'mon. He's a minor political offical (about as local as they can get) who got a DUI charge? Serious
    WP:NOTNEWS among other concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete- miserably fails WP:BIO. Rigby27 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if I'd agree with that statement. We do have multiple independent reliable sources that discuss him. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only source that discusses him biographically is the Webb County site and briefly in the Laredo Morning Times. All other sources only are election articles or DWI articles. The media coverage received by him would be similar to a lot of local representatives in other areas, and they do not satisfy WP:BIO. Why should a DUI make him notable? Rigby27 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend, JoshuaZ Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is essentially a news story. No interest outside of local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kudos to Billy Hathorn for doing a great job of referencing and expanding the article. I don't see how a county justice of the peace is inherently notable, even with having problems with drunk driving. Royalbroil 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly gets coverage, per guidelines, which explicitly allow local politicians that get news coverage. --Leifern (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He is so prominent that even with a drunk driving conviction, he gets a bridge named after him. That is NOTABILITY in itself. Some JP's in TX develop little kingdoms and become entrenched for years.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict; added after closing was factored)

  • Keep but trim; he seems notable enough, but there's no real need to go into the qualifications for being a JP in Texas in the article. The repeated focus on his drink driving is also a little unsettling, and should be re-assessed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:21, 17 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

Spebi 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Floryshe

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

This is nothing more than a dicdef plus original research with no evidence that it can ever be anything but a definition. Per

Talk:Floryshe it was already transwikied although it only shows here and not as a standalone wiktionary link, so I'm not sure what that means. Regardless of wiktionary's content guidelines on keeping it, it doesn't appear to fit the guidelines here. The merger tag that's been on it since June 2007 is a proposed merger to a card trick, so I don't think that was a researched link at the time. Travellingcari (talk) 23:11, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Harvard (film)

John Harvard (film) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Mention of a student film in a campus newspaper doesn't satisfy

notability guidelines. ZimZalaBim talk 22:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Let's allow time for improvements to the article, and not delete in haste. An off-campus review or other credentials would be desirable. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this undergraduate production.DGG (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I would agree with Hertz, but this has been here for months and isn't looking any better, the Google books is not a reference and should be removed and the other one doesn't make it notable.--The Dominator (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I would be inclined to keep this if there had been significant evidence of recent improvement, but without this the notability issue seems quite prominent. Wexcan  Talk  18:59, 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 Delete --JForget 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fucktard

Fucktard (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unnecessary disambiguation page that makes Wikipedia look stupid, to be totally honest, which we'd be better without. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fairly non-notable portmanteau neologism I'd have thought. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are articles in Wikipedia that go much farther than this one towards making this encyclopeida "look stupid." But I can't find much support for keeping the article. A search of Google News archive [2] shows dozens of articles in alternative press such as Village Voice which assert that many national leaders are fucktards, but they do not discuss the term itself. Google scholar [3] likewise came up with only a smattering of uses. Edison (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well,
    Encyclopedia Britannica would probably not have an entry for "fucktard", and with good reason. I tend towards inclusionism, but this, I believe, is worthless in an encyclopedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:15, 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. -- Longhair\talk 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah House

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

Non-notable community. Jmlk17 09:15, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Down

Standing Down (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This is a 2009 film: IMDB calls it an "In Development project". Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 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 no consensus -- Y not? 03:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Volleyball

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

When I dip into this incredible 12k byte slab of dense text it seems to be just the rules of the game. No assertion of notability. Even if it were notable, the best thing is rub-it-out-and-start-again. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Dense" is being nice. "Unreadable" is more apt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a topic that doens't appear to be otherwise covered. I'm surprised that there isn't an article already about this, particularly after the broken nose scene in Meet the Parents. Folks, let's not make fun of a new contributor. Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and no matter how excellent you think your own writing skills may be, we are always refining our talents. I'll volunteer to do the cleanup, but I would encourage AVAH20 to give it a shot first. If "denseman" or "unreadable guy" don't think you're as good as they are, who cares? Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikibooks or wikisource, and replace with a stub. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:55, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment perhaps I'm missing something but why on earth would you propose keep in the afd and then suggest prodding the article? Seems contradictory. I'm not disagreeing with a cleanup tag, but I don't see the connection to your other idea Travellingcari (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find evidence for sales of a pool volleyball and classes in aquatics but what I don't find is RS coverage of its notability. It was played in a film and some people apparently convert their pools for use as a court, but I'd think a sport that has a 'championship' (per the link in the article) would have some coverage. Unless it's under another name? Travellingcari (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a legitimate sport, so what's the problem? It needs a cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough.TheNextOne (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject and the article are two different things. The subject is sufficiently notable. The article is dense but that is not a criterion for deletion. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Volleyball variations and leave as redirect to that article. As I thought of how to rewrite it all I could come up with was a short paragraph saying that it is like volleyball except played in a pool. The rules are essentially the same - and references indicate that it's usually played for fun without official rules. The one EL to an "official" site is broken. I don't see enough to make a full article, but it's worth keeping as a section in the Variations article. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the writing is denser than the core of a black hole, but it seems to be a notable pasttime. Kudos to those who have volunteered to assist in cleaning this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the author is very good at using a lot of words to say very little:

A duration is an amount of time or a particular time interval. For example, an event in the common sense has a duration greater than zero (but not very long), but in certain specialized senses (such as in the theory of relativity), a duration of zero. A stopwatch is a timepiece designed to measure the amount of time elapsed from a particular time when activated to when the piece is deactivated. The stopwatch is typically designed to start at the press of the top button and stop by pressing the button a second time to display the elapsed time. A press of the second button then resets the stopwatch to zero. The second button is also used to record split times or lap times. When the split time button is pressed while the watch is running, the display freezes, but the watch mechanism continues running to record total elapsed time. Pressing the split button a second time allows the watch to resume display of total time.

Somehow I suspect that the author was laughing when he wrote the article and is now laughing at how seriously we are discussing his contribution. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:23, 17 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; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Necromancy

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

Written like a fan site. Plus, it does not meet

WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:44, 24 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, For consistency, I am also tagging and adding below related page on here.
Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
White Necromancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but into the article on the game, not the general one of Necromancy. The context of the description is the role of the concept in the game, not the subject in general. Clearly not enough for an independent article.DGG (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article
    Arcanum (role-playing game). Don't merge into article necromancy, as that refers primarily to the concept in general (including in-the-real-world) as opposed to the concept in a particular RPG. --SJK (talk) 09:18, 16 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.--

talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Street puppet

Street puppet (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Internet video series that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 22:26, 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 Speedy deleted as blatant ad and copyvio. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Payday

Project Payday (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Promotional/advertisement, also may not meet notability criteria. Carom (talk) 22:12, 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 redirect to Michael Holigan's Your New House. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holigan

Delete as per

WP:NOTE. The show Your New House is notable but its host is not notable enough to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:51, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode)

Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

A non notable TV episode. Just an infobox and plot reprise.

talk) 13:29, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Correct venue would have been

WP:RFD. EJF (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

O'Connor Township, Ontario

O'Connor Township, Ontario (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Unused and unlikely to be used redirect vıdıoman 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plausibility as a search term matters as well as inbound links. This is a valid alternate name and redirects are cheap. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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 redirect - go forth and merge, my sons! -- Y not? 03:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of change

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

No evidence of notability; nothing of substance here that couldn't be incorporated into British National Party provided adequate references from reliable, secondary sources are added. Waggers (talk) 13:46, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 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 -- Y not? 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania

Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The only main contributor,

conflict of interest. Based on their contributions[4], they created their account for the sole purpose of making this page. It used to have an advert tag, but it was removed without explanation [5]. I wish I could say what it was accused of advertising, but the link on User:Researchcooperative is kinda broken. The article also used to have a signature[6]
. The article sat around with some statements in the first person plural for 11 months (not true anymore (no thanks to me) but it might make the author look like a spammer, which might make the article seem like spam).

I have a hunch the article has some deeper problems (my 'spammer' argument is pretty heinous), but can't back up that hunch. I can't imagine it achieving good article status, or even fitting in with the 'manual of style', really. --Haikon 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable --thats the point of a combination article. There are undoubtedly articles though on each, most museum exhibitions get reviewed. Do we really want to give information at each museum article about the hundreds of exhibitions it has held? An article does not have to be capable of being a GA, that's not a reason for deletion. Neither is being written by someone without COI, or even a SPA. I removed the ad tag when I removed the stuff that looked a little like spam. DGG (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with everything you say except "The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable." I personally do not believe Wikipedia should have list articles of non-notable events or exhibitions. (Also, I did not mean to say that all of this information should be merged into the relevant museum articles, only that some of the info could be so merged if it was relevant and encyclopedic.) — Satori Son 16:39, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly move appropriate content to Te Maori and expand that -- international traveling exhibitions are often notable. The remainder is not notable and somewhat OR/POV (I'm sure that museum curators outside of Oceania have as much pride in their ability to put together good exhibitions). Individual museums in Oceania that are notable should have their own articles, not a hodgepodge article defending how good they are as a group. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete who the heck is ever gonna look it up? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's useless" is a bad an argument as "it's useful". We can have arcane articles not having size limits. I think the nature of this article is as a combination article to avoid having articles on individual non-notable conferences--as there is fairly general agreement that it would be a very unusual single conference that would warrant a separate article--almost all the existing conference articles are, correctly, for notable conference series. I think this is a reasonable way of doing things when doing them as a series is not applicable, and others can and should be added. DGG (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments offered by User:Dhartung above. There is also a POV issue here, why just these three exhibitions? What makes an exhibition "historical" enough for inclusion, and what content does it have to have to "concern Oceania"? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:28, 17 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Thomas (rugby league)

Jay Thomas (rugby league) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This person is semi-professional and doesn't play for a national side. There was a prod and I thought I'd take it to an AfD as he's at the top level of rugby league in the US. There has been some debate on one of his fellow players (who plays at an international level). JASpencer (talk) 21:55, 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harcus

Sam Harcus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy A7 nomination. Local politician with no notability outside his own area. Borderline verifiability but nothing indicates lasting or widespread notability. - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Please see Ben MacDui's assessment below.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I, for one, am still not convinced. Of course I have no objection to recreation later if Mr. Harcus is the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple
reliable sources at some point. — Satori Son 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Eh? I may edit a lot of Orcadian articles, however, I've never been to the Orkneys myself. Nearest I've been is Caithness. Sam Harcus is notable for the reasons Ben MacDui outlines. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some local councillors are notable, but not this person (yet). Insufficient secondary sources to show notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 17 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connaught Square, Thunder Bay

Connaught Square, Thunder Bay (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

An unused redirect vıdıoman 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that this qualifies for db-self and did not know the code for speedy delete. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. vıdıoman 22:14, 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object D0

Object D0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tried prod, author deleted without explanation.

WP:HOAX, period. "Object D0" returns only results related to mathematics; adding in any other unique terms (e.g. "tito" or "yugoslavia") returns nothing. With foreign language spelling, appears to no longer be a hoax, as a Google search reveals 4 results for "Objekat D-0". Still not notable. Gromlakh (talk) 19:51, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague recollections about a documentary are not a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Granted, the whole point of secret military installations is that there's not a great deal of sources of information about them, but there are not enough sources to indicate that this particular facility is or was notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 17 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 close (non-admin closure), wrong venue. Take this to

WP:RfD. EJF (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Centennial Park, Thunder Bay

Centennial Park, Thunder Bay (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Unnecessary redirect. Nothing links to this other than a bot generated list and a vandalism warning on an IP page. vıdıoman 21:09, 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 -- Y not? 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (cyberpunk)

Matrix (cyberpunk) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

AFDing this article because it offers a definition, and does not fit

WP:NEO. This should go in Wiktionary instead. <3 bunny 20:16, 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. No verified information to merge. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come Together (Victoria Beckham album)

Come Together (Victoria Beckham album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
  • Delete - no sources, not released, nothing here. - eo (talk) 00:58, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per

talk) 18:14, 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 --JForget 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Delgado (footballer)

Pedro Delgado (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:NOTABILITY. Did he ever play? Do sources confirm this? I searched his name and found only one thing out, the name Pedro Delgado is a common name. I never found any notable facts about the footballer. Undeath (talk) 16:46, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article satisfies WP:BIO since he has played for Tachira in the Venezuelan professional league. Jogurney (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. If he has played for Tachira (which I could not yet confirm). All I find is the Vinotinto article linked above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexf (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This link shows that he did play for Tachira in the Copa Libertadores, on February 22, 2001 indicating that he has played at the highest possible level of club football in South America. King of the NorthEast 19:57, 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.

Sacred Goose

The result was speedy delete. Transparent hoax. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Goose (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by IP without explanation, so here we are: This is a fairly obvious

talk 19:47, 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 speedily deleted (per

LaraLove. Non-admin closure. AngelOfSadness talk 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko

AfDs for this article:
Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

unsourced, possibly self advertising, see here

Momusufan

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Walsh, Ontario. JERRY talk contribs 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnybrook Fair

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

A non-notable fair that reads like a promotional ad. There are some sources, but none of them actually prove the fairs notability. Fails

WP:N. It could also possibly be merged with Walsh, Ontario. -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge into Walsh, Ontario to provide a deeper background on the town's colorful past, present, and future. GVnayR (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. A user looking up "Donnybrook Fair" would probably be better served by an article about the Irish one, discontinued in 1855. --
    talk) 01:11, 3 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com

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

Delete someone blanked the page, ignoring process, but this article is sourced only to its own website and seems nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The generic name makes it difficult to find third-party sources, and since none are provided, it fails
    WP:N and should thus be deleted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:00, 1 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 19:04, 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. -- Longhair\talk 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"vaccine video"

"vaccine video" (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, non-notable neologism. The only references that are worth anything do not mention the term once. Roleplayer (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEO. all the references are to YouTube and blogs. This article was used as a reference, but the term "vaccine video" doesn't appear once Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is my first attempt at a wiki page but I do think the criticisms are a bit unfair. I was primarily focused on explaining what a vaccine video is in the context of viral videos and viral marketing. Hence it's true that some of the articles do not mention "vaccine video" specifically but these articles are not being cited for that purpose and I do think they accurately support the propositions for which they are being cited. I actually went Wikipedia to find the term "vaccine video" because it's been used a lot in discussions about unsuccessful viral videos and I was surprised to find no definition at all. While I understand it is a newer term, I think it's a mistake to ignore it altogether. I've gone back and cited a couple of examples of its use by viral marketing companies and in blogs. Mmcfly55 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep With the two NYT examples it meets the sourcing requirement, but there should ideally be a better source for t he actual term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two NYT examples don't actually mention the term once. It mentions a description of the term, but not the term persay. Doc Strange (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Neologism with no independent reliable sources to back up its existence. The NYT article, as noted above, does not use the term. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- neologism -- not enough serious coverage, and not enough serious meaning, at this stage. If the term becomes widespread (unlikely), article can be created in a few years or whatever. But not now. Also, the whole things comes much too close to being
    original research. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, protologism without reliable sources. At best a sentence or two in viral video. It's an attempted viral video that doesn't go viral, that's all. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Breaks Geogre's law too. Reywas92Talk 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it hasn't "caught on" enough to not be a neologism. -- Atamachat 00:12, 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 Speedy Delete A1 no context. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading List

Reading List (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

I can't think of a suitable speedy tag for this, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete per

WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 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 REdirect to Webkinz. Black Kite 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webkinz Trading Cards

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

This article shows no notability for the cards. No reliable sources exist for the cards. Perhaps a merge is needed to Webkinz but I see nothing really worth merging. Metros (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the article. For example, [10]. Yes, the cards haven't won any awards, but many other article's subjects haven't won awards either. Imagine how small Wikipedia would be if only award winning subjects were in it? It is a popular trading card game for the 6-13 year old age group, as seen here [11]. Wikipedia has many other pages for trading cards. Go to this page List of collectible card games and you can see there are at least one hundred collectible card games already with their own pages in Wikipedia. Epass (talk) 21:37, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. JJL (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple redirect or simple delete -- but not merge: absolutely nothing worth merging. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:18, 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 Keep. See talk page for details.JERRY talk contribs 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirani Ameena Begum

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

Prod was removed without reason. Apparently, the only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable and that she published a collection of poems, most of which are now lost. No sources are provided. Given the apparent lack of notability I propose to delete this article. Crusio (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Crusio I added references about her personal publications: Women's Seclusion in the East, by Amina Begum Inayat Khan. "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915 and Poems from Thy Rosary of a Hundred Beads, a collection of poems written by 'Sharda, Pirani Ameena Begum Ora-Ray Inayat Khan'. "Caravanseari" magazine (Canada) November 1988 pp.. 31-34 I know about other her publications during 1930-1960 but now I don't have precise data. Sergey Moskalev talk 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of this article left a note on my talk page and the article's discussion page, I copy it here (edited for layout) with my response as it pertains to the deletion discussion:
  • About Pirani Amina Begum article deletion: According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:
"Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".
"Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.
Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Wikipedia policy and practice.
[[12]] Sergey Moskalev (talk 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • reply: Dear Sergey, thank you for the dictionary definitions of "notability". Unfortunately, notability has its own, special meaning onWikipedia. I suggest you read the policy article on notability. I see that you have added some references to the article, but they still don't seem to establish notability of Pirani Ameena Begum, only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter. By the way, this discussion should better be placed at the AfD page and I will copy your comments and my reply there. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct to say that Wikipedia uses a different, special definition of notable; WP:Notability mentions the "worthy of notice" definition in the second sentence. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Question. Thanks for your opinion, D. Trebbien. However, it might be useful if you could give your reasons on why you think this person is notable? If you would have any additional references, that would be great, because the article currently only cites references that are only tangently related to the subject. --Crusio (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much, admittedly, but the sentence "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's loving and precious help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." leads me to think that she was important in spreading
Sufi
.
I don't know very much about Sufi, but its article is rather long, so it probably has a wide following. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:55 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • To me that phrase just suggests that she was a loving and supportive wife of a notable person. But that doesn't seem to infer notability by itself.--Crusio (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that; it doesn't say.
Here is another line: "Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Sheikh". It is fairly rare in some Islamic cultures for women to be respected figures (I am not saying I like this, of course). « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:28 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recent efforts to improve the article have been helpful. However, the references seem to refer to her as a devoted wife who assisted her more famous relatives in doing their jobs. She does not seem to be regarded as a creative person in her own right. (No published work by her seems to have survived). She was a person who earned respect, and stories about her can be found at various self-published web sites that unfortunately don't count as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited, or given to you by your spouse or children. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the part in which it was stated that she was one of the "first female Sufi Sheikh"s? « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:16 2008 February 4 (UTC)
That's one of the claims that is given with no source. Someone who has the books might be able to check it out for us. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(No published work by her seems to have survived). We add references and sources of her published works 1915 and 1988 Sergey Moskalev (talk 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sergey Moskalev made an edit with the edit summary: I decide removing the "dated prod" notice. Reason - this article will be expand and more new materials will be added to it. To be tolerant to other culture only strengthen spirit of Wikipedia « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:22 2008 February 4 (UTC)
I put the AfD template back. It must have been a mixup. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep appears to have played a sufficiently important historic role. "She's only the wife of ..." should probably get specified as an inherently sexist inappropriate argument. Spouses can play a central role in things,and she apparently did. It would be better to have a more accessibvle source for that, however.DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the comment on this being a sexist argument is completely unwarranted, please
    WP:AGF! If the genders had been opposite, I would still nominate this for deletion. Being the spouse of somebody notable (whether husband or wife) does not confer notability, unless the person himself/herself was notable for other rezasons than being a spouse. In the present case, I don't think any evidence of indpendent notability has been provided. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I do assume good faith towards this particular nomination, no doubt about it, and I apologize if I implied otherwise--I think our recurrent attitude to spouses of notable figures is the problem--we tend to not look hard enough for their individual accomplishments. It's the general historic social attitude not limited to WP that "oh, she's just someone's wife" that is sexist. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that user Crusio, who nominate this article for deletion, produce not only sexist arguments, but allow to himself offensive remarks like: "only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter". If this "(perhaps)" relate to Noor Inayat Khan who was - GC, MBE, British Special Operations Executive agent in World War II of Indian origin and the first female radio operator to be sent into occupied France to aid the French Résistance, so this remark for my opinion have bitter taste of racism. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion is starting to degrade. DGG, apologies accepted, I see what you mean. Sergey, I really don't see where in any comment I said anything that could be construed as racism. Please let's stick to the topic, which is the notability of the subect of this article, Pirani Ameena Begum, not that of any of her relatives. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Sergey that cultural differences are part of the issue. Allow for newby editor to source and write article so subject is more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 (talk) 02:20, 16 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'd like to note that many subjects, such as albums, do not have titles but have valid articles about them; the "no title" argument alone is worthless. This article does not provide any reliable sources to back up its claims, and so

Spebi 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Tommy february6's third studio album

AfDs for this article:
Tommy february6's third studio album (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

No Sources, Nothing on official site stating a new album release

talk) 18:27, 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.

Spebi 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Omer Inayat

Omer Inayat (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion but apparently somebody thinks the person is notable. I will only yield to this with some second opinions. As far as I see, he is not so notable that he must be included in Wikipedia. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability asserted is insufficient to pass

WP:MUSIC. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the article asserts notability, which is the criteria to stay at the speedy deletion level. That doesn't mean that the admin declining speedy thinks that the article is notable. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh... I understand now. Either way, I aim to get it deleted here since it is not notable. Thanks for the information, I really did not understand that until now. (I feel really stupid.) Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as what they say above and the reason I nominated it for deletion, nobody has heard about Omer Inayat, nobody is coming to Wikipedia to look him up, nor is there enough information or references to write an accurate article on him (which would violate

WP:BLP). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - We just need to remember that if this article gets deleted we need to delete the redirect. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 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 Fixed.

Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Medeleni

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

This is an odd one. A disambiguation page, where none of the articles it's trying to dismabiguate exist. According to the

(talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - A dab page shouldn't contain links to articles that might be created later. If the articles do appear, then it can be recreated. 
(talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambig pages are sometimes useful repositories of work still to be done. Though this could easily be fixed by seeing if we can quick put together a stub on one of these villages as well.
matt91486 (talk) 23:23, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep instead of arguing, I just created the three stubs for the villages. I hope someone will follow up with the infobox & coordinates. DGG (talk) 20:12, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cullen (Twilight)

Edward Cullen (Twilight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This seems to fail the proposed standards of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The entire article is a massive plot summary. The only non-plot related materials are the first sentence and the movie portrayal section. Nothing here suggests that this character is notable outside the book series. Metros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are eight other major characters in this book series with individual articles, so how about creating a Major characters in Twilight article and merging (and greatly trimming) all the character articles into it? Since there are five books and an upcoming film, there is not a single existing article where all the characters' biographies can be summarized. Bláthnaid 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that the page should be deleted. It's very useful for re-reading what had happened in the first three books (when Edward is concerned), so that, when the fourth book (supposedly called, "Breaking Dawn") comes out, the reader can remember the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.swan87 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usefulness is not a consideration for articles such as this. Metros (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I recommend trimming then merging this article along with any other character bios that may have been created. For example, have a look at
    Troy series character description page - while I'm sure fans of the series could easily have written individual articles about the characters (and compared real life similarities etc. etc.) the small character biographies in this summary page are more than sufficient for readers to get a general idea of the series' characters. As a lot of effort has evidently been put into this article (and it appears to be reasonably well-written for Wikipedia) I am not in favour of wiping it, but rather condensing it and other character pages on the subject into a more Wiki-friendly form. SMC (talk) 08:53, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in the article, perhaps, to suggest this character is independently notable, but the AfD rules do ask that nominators first search outside of Wikipedia for evidence of notablity. Given that every single teenaged girl I've met in the past six months who's learned I've read the books has asked me if I'm pro-Edward or not, I suspect this, of all the series' characters, is in fact notable -- just unnoticed by adults (who unlike Harry Potter, haven't been reading these wildly bestselling books). That said, I think opening a merge discussion for all the characters into a list is in order, and if nothing comes of it (either a merge or an improvement) bringing this back to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This is an article that would seem to justify the worst fears of the fiction deletionists.--that people will write page by page descriptions of every plot detail that happen in a fiction, and do it not just in a plot description, but once again through the viewpoint of each of the characters. Yet the characters in important books need to be adequately described, and in a series or even in a single really important book the continuing characters need a good deal of description--so great, that there will almost always be a need for a separate article on a major character--purely on grounds of practicality and summary style. (and a adequate section of a combination article for each of the minor characters) The way to do it, of course, is to write a good article of a reasonable size, with some reference to just where in the book the events occur, and with attention to the development of the character during the book or series, and with references to whatever criticism and reviews there are. This article will need both--the reduction of the plot elements, and adding of the others. In general this can be done starting even with absurd articles like this, by cutting and supplementing. I'd start, but even the cutting would be much better done by someone who has at least heard of the books before reading this AfD. Some can be done just by copy editing, so to show that I will work when I say work should be done, I made a start at making some of the wording more concise. DGG (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nothing worth keeping, no
    real-world notability demonstrated whatsoever. After removing all the in-universe cruft prose from the article, absolutely nothing would remain. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Arbcom currently does not allow the deletion of characters, but this article is pretty bad as DGG already stated. I recommend to cover this character in a character list like Bláthnaid suggested, but I am not sure whether this should be happening through delete&startnew or majortrim&merge. – sgeureka t•c 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom has disallowed the deletion of book characters? What? Can you link to where that was decided? Thanks, Metros (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • if its not upfor deletion anymore then why does it say that it is? --KaidenShiba 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaidenShiba (talk • contribs)
it is not clear how far the episodes and characters injunction applies--whether only to video episodes, or to all similar articles; it is also not clear whether it applies to consensus discussions in an open forum like this one. The prudent course seems to be to keep the discussions in abeyance until the decision, so we do not have to face the prospect of redoing things. Personally, I doubt they will think it their role to offer us the sort of guidance on actual article inclusion policy that would disrupt any reasonable consensus. DGG (talk) 19:43, 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 delete.It has been suggested that relevant content is merged into the main

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a page that is linked from Cold fusion and already covers said information, can be found taking a life on its own (for some time now), I conclude that this timeline has no other useful [1] materials that can be merged; ergo, it can safely be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. ^ by "useful" I mean "verified" and "significant"

Timeline of cold fusion

Timeline of cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork of cold fusion. The key events are already in that article, and much of this is padding (e.g. an entry for every year's "international conference" of CF advocates). Guy (Help!) 15:46, 24 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE. This page has been relisted in an effort to get a better consensus. I made an honest error in closing this page with the wrong consensus decision. The above discussion did not match my initial closing decision of "delete".(See history). Please accept my apology and continue on with the debate that I am now abstaining from. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cold fusion. JJL (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete per nom, useless POV fork of the most ridiculous kind. Absolutely silly. Really, listing all those "conferences" -- it's not just padding, it's not just POV pushing (although it is all that, of course), it's simply absolute absurdity. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still advocate deletion. As far as I can tell, anything of any value is already in cold fusion. There is nothing more to merge, without reintroducing cruft and POV pushing into that article. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. This so-called "timeline" of non-notable, fringe (or if you prefer "extremely non-mainstream") events is not something we want to see in the main article. - Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as a section, retaining the content. Whatever one may think of the likelihood of this science, the subject is highly notable and the conferences remain important. This serves asa useful historical summary. Its moreappropriate than trying to do an article on the conference series.DGG (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of conference series organized all over the world in all kinds of sciences and disciplines. We don't have articles on every single one of them. Why should we have one in this extremely non-mainstream subject? This is POV pushing. We are being gamed. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the subject is notable. Which is why nobody's nominating the subject for deletion. This timeline, however, exists primarily to present as much fringe material as possible in a rebuttal-free context. As far as the outside world is concerned, the real timeline of CF begins with Pons and Fleischhmann and ends... well, with Pons and Fleischmann looking very silly, some weeks later. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly the article exists in an attempt to be rebuttal-free, but entries can be challenged for lack of notability. Perhaps you could swing consensus here or with some future nomination by making the case that there are no entries here that would be worth mention in any Wikipedia article, or at least that there are so few such entries, that they do not merit a separate article. And, while the article abides, its effect might be quite the opposite of what you fear, were some interested editors to ensure that the article only listed conferences of note. —SlamDiego←T 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even ordinary conferences are not significant events. It is my understanding that the more recent cold fusion conferences are by invitation only, and that only proponents of cold fusion are invited. Listing such conferences as "significant events" makes this article a POV fork. There is no need to formally merge; the number of actually significant events in this timeline that are not already in the cold fusion article is small (in the range of 0 to 3) and they could easily be edited in if there were a consensus to do so. Cardamon (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. The only content here that's not in the main cold fusion article appears to be crankery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:38, 17 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. For the benefit of those discussing subpages and referencing a help page on meta, please read

WP:SUBPAGE. JERRY talk contribs 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:15, 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 keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout stage

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:08, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 group stage

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to
    UEFA Cup 2007-08 --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - This article goes into much more detail than the main article. If the two articles were merged, the main article would become much too big, hence why they were split. –
    Jay 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment You wrote "Totally not notable."? I beg to differ on that first point!! Govvy (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Contrasting UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup please. The champion of CL could participate into the FIFA Club World Cup, and gloried with a "European Champion" title. Those two honor are totally blessed. UEFA Cup could not achieve those things, however. Raymond Giggs 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please work on your English. It hurts my eyes. Anyway, yes the UEFA Cup is less notable than the Champions League, but it's still the second biggest club football competition in Europe. Get off your high horse and stop being such a baby because your article got justly deleted. –
        Jay 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Reply All goals go into the players statistics on the UEFA database. The article is fine, it's not a bad article at all. All information is correct, it helps to have that bit in it's own article as to not main the main article to big. So I really don't know what you are playing at here. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Ask those people who prevented me working on the first round article. Raymond Giggs 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply But that article was silly, it was a repeat of this one, now you want to remove this one? To me it's like your trying to act some revenge or something... Govvy (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply - I wondered how silly is it? I stated that I want to make detailed result because it is a compulsory round for every teams, but all people ignored me. I decided to put on AfD after considering all of your responses. All of you seems don't want to make detailed result for every compulsory rounds. Raymond Giggs 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only real question is whether there should be more detail. Merging into the main article would make it too large, and that is an acceptable reason for creation of subarticles. DGG (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the logic behind the nominator, Nothing wrong with this article, it contains all notable information, the article shouldn't be merged. That would make the main article much too big. Fine the way it is. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I also don't know the logic behind the nominator who put on the AfD of first round and the contributor who suggested deleting the first round article too. Raymond Giggs 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Because it was a copy! You don't need two versions we already had enough information for it in this article!! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - COPY!? I have already said that I would make the detailed result if all of you support me for keep making the detailed result that main article had not mentioned, but all of you are highly impatient and it discouraged me! And no one apologize! Raymond Giggs 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the article should be left the way it is, it provides good detail that is not found in the main article and if merged would make the main article much too large to be useful. If a change were truly needed I would rather see the main article be a smaller summary article for all rounds of competition and the subarticles used for more detailed information. Mookey42 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The urge to make detailed articles about every tiny detail of every ball that is kicked is pure recentism, and wikipedia is not an almanac of what's happening in the football news. Enough is enough. One article for the season's UEFA cup competition should suffice. Robotforaday (talk) 12:28, 15 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 --JForget 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager

AfDs for this article:
Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Attempted copy-and-paste merge of Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Voyager. There is no question that these two articles should be merged, but only through the normal merging process. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the title Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager is inappropriate because it is too long. The title should be Plymouth Voyager with a redirect from Chrysler Voyager --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, except maybe under criterion G6. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
true--Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but probably speediable (G6). —
    talk 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Improper, sloppy merger without consensus attempted or attained. I do not necessarily agree with Blanchardb that there's "no question" the articles should be merged; there are cogent arguments for and against such a merger, and Blanchardb's recommendations regarding a combined article's title and redirects is US-centric and not necessarily optimal. However, those are questions to be discussed on the talk page of Plymouth Voyager and/or Chrysler Voyager (and/or Dodge Caravan). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wrong way to go about merger (which I don't think is warranted, the Plymouth brand had a long history before it was folded into Chrysler). --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:GFDL copyright violation to merge content without the histories that gives attribution to the original contributors. This is a derivative work. Suggest rolling everything back before the disruption and following the proper merge proposal and implementation procedures if merger is approved. --NrDg 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I noticed that the source articles are now back to their original state and nothing links to the subject article. We can let the 5 day AfD timer play out and ignore this article until it is deleted.--NrDg 23:43, 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 Keep. Editors should continue the discussions to improve and/ or merge the article on the article talkpage and/or be

WP:BOLD. JERRY talk contribs 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Tornadocane

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

I'm proposing this article's deletion because a similar article, landphoon, was deleted in August despite having seven unique sources, while this term has exactly one. In short, it's not encyclopedaic since one person appears to have made up the term in 1999, it does not exist in the glossary of meteorology, and (unlike landphoon) no one else I know has ever used the term (I'm a meteorologist). Thegreatdr (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term is unofficial, and per the deletion of landphoon. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral :I did some editing on that article yesterday to transform it from a single event article to a more general one describing the process and adding the 2003 case. I saw that it was not related to many other articles but I was not aware that anybody was contemplating removing it. Personally, I don't care one way or another about the removal but I would not have lost time on editing if I had known. However, I want to make the point that since there was info in the deleted article called landphoon, it seems to me that there might be enough material in combining the two articles to make an encyclopedic article OR transfert the info into the
    Mesoscale Convective System articles. Even if the terms are not "widely known", the feature is interesting. Pierre cb (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge - Into
    chat 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge - with
    say what ? 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - This article is about two specific rare cases, similar to tornado outbreak articles. It is related strongly to a supercell, but this article is about the event, not a meterological phenomenon. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even when it is unofficial, this term refers to a specific and rare kind of storm system, which is not properly described just by the term supercell. This is a recently discovered and not yet well researched event, so, it explains why it does not appear in the official glossary of meteorology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.248 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per arguments of 196.40.10.248. Also, the term has wide spread usage when googled.Rigby27 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term is not found in the professional literature.
    cool stuff) 05:32, 15 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. JERRY talk contribs 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FantasyLiterature.net

FantasyLiterature.net (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable Web site, less than a year old. Only 45 discrete ghits, all message boards, directories, and the like. No apparent in-depth coverage in

reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not that it has much to do with the reasons for deletion given above, but I thought I'd point out that the username of the article's author, Kahooper, suggests an identity with Katherine Hooper, the creator of the Web site in question. Deor (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the discussion page (sorry): I authored the topic FantasyLiterature.net and I'm the owner of the website. Until about a month ago, we were on the top page (and usually the top spot after Wikipedia) for all related searches. We received most of our hits from Google. Unfortunately, I submitted a sitemap to Google that somehow knocked us completely off for about 3 weeks. We are finally back in the index, but have not yet reestablished our top page position. Since your main complaint seems to be that we are "unnotable" due to lack of Google hits, I wanted to explain that. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove what our position on Google was a month ago. I now have Google analytics tracking the page, but I set that up after the sitemap problem. I have a Sitemeter account, but it is the free version and does not track beyond the last 100 visitors, I believe. If you know of a way to determine our Google hits before we had this problem, I encourage you to research that, or tell me how to so that I can direct you to the source. Thank you for your consideration. Kahooper (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper 2/9/08

New comments: Yes, I am the author of the article AND the website.

  • Delete. Blatant advertising for a non-notable website, and a very clear conflict of interests. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that hits & ranking, of themselves, do not establish notability. It's important to determine the nature and quality of hits & ranking. A website could easily have a good whitehat (or blackhat) SEO/SEM strategy that includes multiple crosslinks with other websites (maybe even their own) which would increase their hitcounts and ranking. However, having several first page Google listings or hundreds of hits still says nothing about the notability of the website itself, only that they did sufficient footwork in their advertising and marketing campaign to increase their search engine visibility. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepWarrior4321talkContribs 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hits & Ranking do not establish notability. 'WIKI CLEANUP is in the need here, not deletion.[reply]
  • Keep Accurate description of the site, as opposed to "blatant advertising" and technical difficulties which have affected its ranking should be taken into consideration. Author was honest and did not attempt to hide her identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.46.200 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.38.46.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - 1) Accurate website description. 2) Technical difficulties submitting a sitemap to Google. 3) Google hits and/or ranking. 4) Author's honesty and identity. Summary - None of these establish the
    sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:14, 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 delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trample

Trample (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. D. Monack | talk 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It does seem to be a notable activity in the BDSM subculture. Perhaps somehow merge this article with BDSM? The reason I don't vote keep is because the article is too much of a spam trap and is not worth the effort of keeping spam free. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply and Delete Even if it is notable in BDSM subculture, it should still be in wiktionary. -ReuvenkT C 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not at all knowledgable about the subject matter but I don't think it's inconceivable that the subject could develop into an encyclopedic article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Quite possibly notable, but it needs some kind of sources. Print is OK too--there should be enough magazie references. DGG (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, seems a dicdef at the moment. Could possibly be turned into a decent article on the BDSM practice in the future, but deleting the article now won't make that any harder. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:42, 17 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. User:DGG has kindly offered his services for this outcome. JERRY talk contribs 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martiniano Ferreira Botelho

Martiniano Ferreira Botelho (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

No reliable source concerning this article. I couldn't find the book mentionned in the Bibliography. On the OCLC database as well as in Google Books, Martiniano Ferreira Botelho is unknown. SalomonCeb (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - Had you bothered to click on the interwiki link to the Portuguese article, you would see three references right there. This might be worth withdrawing.

matt91486 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally, sorry if my phrasing sounded a little harsh. It wasn't intentional. I can see the purpose of the nomination once I look at the history (I was looking just at the articles themselves before, not looking into the history, that's me being sloppy, sorry), but there are references that seem to show that Martiniano is somewhat notable.
matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep See please that book exists and see again the external link i post in the article. Check this link please [13]

Regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The book by him is just a doctoral thesis; it was apparently all he published. The other references are local biographical dictionaries, which are typically not very selective. I think he is a local figure, not notable, just like the many local notables in the US whose articles get deleted with regularity. His house was turned into a municipal museum i House of the County in the town of Vila Pouca de Aguiar -- population 15,000. We should probably delete that article on the museum also, as we would a similar small town museum in the US or UK. I am a consistent advocate for covering all countries to the same degree of comprehensiveness.
But actually there's a simpler solution--merge both into the article on the town, which could use some content. I can do that, since I see I can manage to decipher the Portuguese a swell as the roughly translated English. DGG (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Although the book is a thesis, he was the first to study the "Pedras Salgadas mineral water" and their medical properties. I agree entirely with the merge of both articles and it would benefit the Vila Pouca de Aguiar article. The result might be bether for sure. Best regards and thank you for your help DGG Carlos Botelho (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Definitely a notable as a local figure, but it makes more sense to me to include him in the town/village article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 17 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.--

talk) 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ben Macleod

Ben Macleod (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Despite assertions, it would appear that this actor is merley the voice actor for the video game of Harry Potter. However this is still not a speedy

Notability seems pretty weak, so recommend delete Pedro :  Chat  14:36, 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 No consensus (default keep). Merging can be decided by interested editors elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Kabanalbanalan

Ang Kabanalbanalan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable radio program by a non notable Church. It's an adveristement Dft56 (talk) 14:17, 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 Keep. -- Longhair\talk 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable church. It's an advertisement Dft56 (talk) 14:12, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CINTAX

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, self-promotion Lumberjake (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete written sounds like an advertisement. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote it for informative purpose and have no reason to 'promote' or 'advertise' it. 2000 google hits for widespread of CINTAX in the context of taxes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I could go either way. Weak keep or weak delete. I have not heard of it from the side of Taxation but I'm not that familiar with International Tax Preparation, not sure how it falls under the Software area. Morphh (talk) 1:06, 04 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I used this software while I was studying in the USA, and I think it is well-known within its niche (international students and scholars). Whether this has been enough to catch the attention of relevant secondary sources to establish notability, I don't know, but it seems possible. --Itub (talk) 15:38, 6 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, Salix alba (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I did a Google search to see what's out there. I find a lot of colleges with pages telling non-residents how to use CINTAX to file their US tax returns, but I can't find any commentary/news coverage of the product. However, I'll grant that the breadth of coverage, plus the fact that some major schools have pages about it, is enough to verify that it exists and is notable as described. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 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 Keep, obviously. Inhabited places are notable, as described by all participants in this discussion. The topic of moving or renaming the article to follow convention or whatever is a subject for discussions elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oru na Nneude

Oru na Nneude (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wholly

non-notable village. Asserts no major importance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: Also nominating the following:
  • Note the author of this article is currently blocked from editing for 3 months for vandalism. Gwernol 14:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article is terrible in every way, but the subject would appear easily large enough to be notable. It must have a population of several thousands. Nominator does not understand the relevant policies, I'm afraid - his link goes to the non-adopted "Notability (schools)"! Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was my mistake; as a user with 11,000+ edits, I am quite keen on policies; SCL was linked to not only Places and Transportation but to Schools, which I corrected the error. A village of "several thousands" -- can this be verified or at least acknowledged outside of WP? A general search engine query proves fruitless. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FallingRain entry has this listed under population "Approximate population for 7 km radius from this point: 63873". Note: this does not mean the village itself is that big, it may just be near a large metropolitan area but it is certainly close to something large, if not large itself. Also the article Ahiara mentions it as being one of the "ten scepters of Ahiara" so if it could be improved it would be nice to have an article on each one. I don't know if this meets the notability requirements and I'm not sure whether to keep it or not, just pointing out what I have noticed. -AndrewBuck (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised an editor with 11,000 edits thinks that villages are deletion material. They aren't, per long standing precedent. Perhaps it was the creator's vandalism? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no assertion of notability, outside of population, and no other verifiable sources, then the article is nothing more than a very poorly constructed stub. If someone wants to recreate it in the future, they have the tools available to do so. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oru na Nneude, village whose existence is verified. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we stopped considering all villages inherently notable? If not, keep. If so, please say where such a decision was made. The reasoning for this exception to Wikipedia:Notability is debatable, but, as long as its in place, there's no reason for inconsistency in coverage. The article is better off than when you nominated it, Seicer; take another look. Picaroon (t) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would say it's better off as a result of being nominated, because more people have paid a visit to Oru na Nneude just to find out what it was. For those of you who couldn't care less, it's a city in the West African nation of Nigeria. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sad that it takes an AFD for people to care about an article. What investment has been made to the articles is only minimal though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; deletion nominations aren't exactly supposed to be article improvement drives (deletion is for when improvement seems unlikely to work). But without more sources, what more can be done to it? It's formatted/organized about right. I find that articles related to the southeast are often in this condition; Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani subjects are generally better off than Igbo ones, but only because there are less articles to take care of, and less inexperienced users to deal with. Picaroon (t) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and one of the primary contributors is just a ranting lunatic, and there seems to be a lack of editors in that particular region. I can't find anything regarding it, outside of what's posted, through a wide-scope database search at our university. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 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 No consensus (default keep); merge discussions can occur elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador C. Payawal

Salvador C. Payawal (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable in the Philippines Dft56 (talk) 13:48, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7 for failing to assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teofilo D. Ora

Teofilo D. Ora (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough for Wikipedia Dft56 (talk) 13:31, 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 speedy delete per

A7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Golem Relictus

Golem Relictus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Article on an unreleased video game that fails to assert notability per

WP:PROD, but prior CSD was contested by creator. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it explores a fictional concept related to the above and to another unreleased game:

Vendensetsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
add also Another Story‎, same author, same "series" of NN blatant advertising - superβεεcat  04:59, 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 to N.W.A. and the Posse. And a sidenote, that this is one of the least civil debates I have witnessed to date. If it was within the remit of AfD, there would also be some user blocks in my closing. JERRY talk contribs 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Dee

Krazy Dee (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable musician/rapper. The only verifiable information I can find is that he co-wrote 1 early non-hit NWA song ("Panic Zone") and provided back-up vocals on The D.O.C.'s first album. Aside from some non-notable solo releases, that's it. He claims to have been a member of NWA but none of their biographies mention him; it seems more like he was a fringe associate rather than a member or true collaborator. Fails

WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 12:46, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z.O

Z.O (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable, fails

WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 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, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost a year old and still no indication of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would appear to fail
    WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:49, 17 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 National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. WjBscribe 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control

National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Article already exists

here The Missing Piece (talk) 12:12, 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 keep.--

talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeremy Kosbob

Jeremy Kosbob (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Is playing for the united states rugbly league team a claim to notability? it's national but also amateur so I'm not quite sure. JASpencer (talk) 11:56, 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.

Spebi 08:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Southwest Broadcasting Network

Southwest Broadcasting Network (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

A school television network, the notability is not made clear here. JASpencer (talk) 10:06, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal health information

Personal health information (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Completely context-less, but not short enough to meet speedy (I think?)  superβεεcat  09:47, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas Michael

Yonas Michael (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established, basically an over-blown vanity article. WWGB (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has failed to make an impact as either a filmmaker or a musician, so it seems. I hope he does better as a novelist, but until then he is not sufficiently notable.
    disco) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 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 closed due to Arbitration Committee injunction. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Propane People

AfDs for this article:
(View AfD)

Non-notable King Of The Hill episode articles consisting of

notability outside the show itself. This is relisted; previous nomination included 40 episodes (after 40 contested prods), and was closed as "no consensus" solely because closing editor considered the nomination too unwieldy in size to form a consensus, despite Keep votes consisting of bad faith accusations against the nominator and unsubstantiated claims of notability, and despite a similar nomination
closing as Delete all.

There is no content to merge, as the existing episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is unnecessary since none of these article titles are likely search terms. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Nokia_products#Nokia_1xxx_series_.E2.80.93_Ultrabasic_series. As User:Mikeblas says, Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalogue. No Keep votes give any rationale for doing so.Black Kite 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1200

Nokia 1200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced and reads like an advertisement. Too few substantial independent third-party references exist to support a wikipedia article that is itself not a review or a advert. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone directory. Mikeblas (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, it does read a bit like an advertisement yes but all that needs is a bit of editing. Wikipedia is a mobile phone directory.--Him and a dog 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only slight - very slight - claim to notability I could find is that "The Nokia 1200, 1208 and 1650 will be the first models to feature text alerts that will automatically remind users to turn off their chargers when the phone's battery has been fully replenished." - [[14]] - I have no idea of the history of phone notability, however looking at
    WP:NOT#DIR and even trying to rein in my deletionist tendencies I can't see this phone being notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have added more references, so your comments are no longer relevant. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say no longer relevant, especially since two sources are hardly independent as they come from a "Nokia Museum". My original redirect vote still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By common sense a mobile phone manufactured by Nokia is notable. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 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 delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ercole

Joseph Ercole (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

I don't think "Treasurer of the United States Merchant Marine Academy Employees Association" passes WP:N/WP:BIO and there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of the man as the hits are, with two possible exceptions, for others with the same name. Filtering ghits for relevancy returns one non-wiki/mirror, a mention of his attendance at an event Travellingcari (talk) 07:20, 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.

talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Cindy Emch

Cindy Emch (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Appears to have been created and largely edited by subject. Most of the links provided are to work. The only references available appear to be trivial coverage in papers for hosting or being affiliated with events. Only other references appear to be as a source for a masters paper. Nothing that adequately covers subject for a biographical article. Searches (Google, Books, Scholar, News) -Optigan13 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete poet with no significant publications. DGG (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only coverage of any significance I could find was this, but she isn't the subject of the article, and there isn't anything else. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complacent autobiography. We may be mistaken thinking that there's no material available to construct a valid article (though I doubt it) but deleting this version of it is a no-brainer. Pichpich (talk) 00:19, 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 Kept. I have read though the comments below and looked through the article. Although Rick Boychuk has never rose above the office of a city councillor (sidenote: Realkyhick...we use genderless titles in Canada so its councillor and not councilman or councilwoman), he has received extensive coverage in a notable newspaper: the Winnipeg Free Press — the oldest newspaper in Western Canada. As that is the case, my decision is to keep the article. (closed by User:Nat)

Rick Boychuk

Rick Boychuk (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician. Never rose above office of city councilman. Fails

WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment AFDs normally last five days. That should be sufficient time to show sources of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article looks pretty much finished. But if I see any sort of notability established I will happily modify my !vote. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete, does not seem notable at present. However, if CJCurrie can provide additional cited claims of notability, then please disregard this vote.
    disco) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure they're different. The editor has been so since 1995 and lives in Ottawa from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks I wasn't sure and kept getting bumped down by pay gates so I couldn't verify or not in either direction. Travellingcari (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neat thing about the RB at CG is that he answers emails. So I just sent him one to find out for sure. :) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely different people, confirmed by email. Franamax (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for tracking down the confirmation, or confirmation of not -- would that be unconfirmation? as it may be ;) Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the wiki-speak is, maybe !confirmed? Anyway, hurray for the Rick Boychuk at the incomparable Canadian Geographic, let's all head over there and improve the article! Franamax (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability permit the inclusion of articles on municipal politicians who have received extensive coverage in secondary sources. The precise wording designates as notable "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Boychuk satisfies this criteria, and (in my view) the article should be kept accordingly. (I'm still not finished, btw, and I should clarify that there are several more sources than those currently included in the article.) CJCurrie (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Virtually every city council member in every city in North America gets mentioned by his local newspaper at least every couple of weeks. What makes Boychuk rise above other of his level of office? Nothing that you've asserted so far. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer Am I reading the history right? AfD within three minutes? How about a two-week interlude, if it's not (much) better then, I'll gladly vote to delete. But three minutes to establish notability? C'mon... Franamax (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick update: I don't currently have the time to make an extended case for keeping this article. I'd like to reinerate my request that this decision be deferred for now. CJCurrie (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have five days. So your request is rejected. Punkmorten (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, but isn't that decision the closer's to make? Franamax (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification (wow, slipping back into high school debate days) ... my view is that mayors and city councilmen of major cities are notable on paper. Let's see some more sources, and I'll gladly change to keep.
96 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Definitely agree on mayors, but not necessarily on council members, unless they've made a name for themselves running for higher office (or, more often, getting trouble somehow). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:42, 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 with no prejudice against recreation if/ when reliable sources can be located to susbtantiate assertions of notability. JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar Mohammad

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

Non notable and totally Unreferenced both references are from a forum talk page written by the author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Don't even know if it's real. Should have been a speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone finds sources--it should be in the published histories of the period, though it would probably take a library, not the web, to find them. It asserted importance, though, so it could not possibly be a speedy. Asserting someone is commander in chief of a national army is clearly asserting notability, and if it can be shown from any reference source that he held that position, he';s notable beyond any question. Tipu was certainly real enough, and so was his army. It fought the British for years. DGG (talk) 20:25, 1 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, SorryGuy  Talk  07:02, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Roman Catholic parish histories

English Roman Catholic parish histories (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

The summary of this article is unsourced Department of Redundancy Department because there is already a wonderful article about the

Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, which covers the history quite well. This article has a summary and then oodles upon oodles of external links to the parishes themselves with little-no content. The text that is there, London, for example is wholly unsourced. WP is not a collection of links, which was also noted on the talk page almost two years ago Travellingcari (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Yes, but it's a list of external links, not categorized content, which directly violates WP:NOT section that I linked above. Travellingcari (talk) 17:48, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
) No real world context, fails
WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--The Dominator (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, but isn't this only a proposed decision? And there's only four supporters where there should be seven for a decision to be accepted? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Didn't read the small print, was looking at the overall description. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arbcom injunction.

talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Adam Mayfair

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

Non-notable fictional character that hasn't been covered by reliable secondary sources and has no real world context. Fails

WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 06:55, 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 Speedy delete by C.Fred. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceNYC

PeaceNYC (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a report copied from elsewhere. It does not appear fit to be an encyclopedia entry.

talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Alert to administrators: Please cancel this AfD; the article was speedy deleted (for blatant advertising) by another user as I made this entry. Thank you.

talk) 06:58, 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 --JForget 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan J

Stan J (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Non-notable musical artist. WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of P'Jem

AfDs for this article:
Shadows of P'Jem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for references for over 5 months. Article is just a an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability.

talk) 22:37, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Are you going to tag every episode for deletion?
    Every Trek episode has an entry. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, an unremarkable episode of the series with no wide notability.
    disco) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Keep Part of a
    What a page should contain. I argue that as a class these articles are worthy of improvement and should be improved. Cherry-picking individual articles of the set for deletion only serves to make the overall presentation incomplete. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and further info on significance for plot development in later seasons. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article may have been lacking when it was originally nominated, this one has enough sources and "real world" information (such as the critical reception of the episode, and its role in the continuity of the series) to meet the low threshhold of notability for a TV episode. I'm glad to see a crackdown on TV episode articles, which had gotten way out of hand; I'm a strong beleiver in the idea that most such articles should stay up only for awhile, then taken down again after an editor has learned from the experience, especially since the deleted articles will resurface in the future. However, there are circumstances in which an episode can be notable, and this one passes. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Davewild has this exactly right-- the article stays for the duration of the arbitration case, meaning that a ruling on "keep" or "delete" should be made after that process finishes. I'm not sure that anyone was made aware of the "halt to activities" until Colonel Warden brought it to our attention, so don't worry, nominator... your "violation" will not be punished (sounds pretty scary though, doesn't it?). Rather than a speedy keep, I think that ultimately, this will be relisted (along with all the comments made here) after a decision is made. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires
    WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (Enterprise)

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

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for excessive plot length for over 7 months. Article is just an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability.

talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Dude, its consensus, not a vote. Plus your comments makes inclusionists seem like idiots. Zidel333 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ostensibly a discussion, but in fact it's a vote. And people who like to keep each and every shit just because it's Star Wars or Star Trek are idiots. User:
      Dorftrottel 23:38, February 2, 2008
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to mention the 200 or so Doctor Who articles, etc. Yup, depending how Arbcom rules I expect an orgy of AFDs. At which point I pretty much plan to resign as a contributor. 23skidoo (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough for an article of itself. A short synopsis should have been provided in a large article for the series' run, or some similar strategy. And the only argument for keeping I can see being used here is
    that other crap exists. SMC (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and a note on its significance for plot development in a later season. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the plot synopsis is way too long, with its "Then what happened?" approach that crowds out discussion of the significance of the episode. I imagine that more sources can be found to show the reaction to the episode, which was one of the (many) ways that Berman and Braga departed from the premise of the original series and its successors. In this case, it broke the "All Vulcans are logical and emotionless" rule, which some fans thought was a good development, and others thought was heresy. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above-stated injunction. (aeropagitica) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Although I'm in favor of keeping, an injunction doesn't mean an automatic keep, pending later renomination. It means that a decision on this should be made later. That being the case, I think that this is something that would need to be "relisted for further debate" (along with all these comments) once the injunction is lifted. To my knowledge, the halt to activities has only recently been communicated to other editors as part of the AfD process. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires
    WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 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 Redirect to Ragging; merge already completed by others. JERRY talk contribs 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have died because of ragging

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

Seven or so deaths is unfortunate, but with 9 million people comitting suicide annually, very many due to bullying, singling just these few for an article seems non-notable. Attributing a single cause to these suicides is simplistic and appears to be non-neutral, original research.

talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page because it just lists two alleged and aparrently unproven allegations, and has no place in an encyclopedia. These articles appear to fall foul of

WP:SOAP
.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Comment. Agreed there is plenty of coverage for
talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, I meant there's been coverage of those specific deaths, which were pivotal in the debate. `Relata refero (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think by listing specific individuals there is probably more info than required to make the point; is there not also an issue that in moving the info away from the actual ragging article that the point is less well made?
talk) 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Content issue. Can be sorted out in internal wording. Relata refero (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - the issue here is the title. I don't think "List of people for whom ragging has been suggested as a possible contributory factor in their deaths" really works, but that's what this article is.
talk) 17:47, 7 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 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD closes as keep we should add this to that list. You are, IMO, correct that it fits well with this list.
talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Although, this is not to say I retract support for deletion. There is, in that list, a list of deaths caused by suicide, for example, into which this list could be merged.
talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete The topic as is isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not news nor an indescriminate list of facts. Simple lists of people who have a particular trait in common but are otherwise not notable is not encyclopedic subject matter. The lists of people by cause of death articles pointed to by User:The Transhumanist above are useful indices of articles in Wikipedia, they aren't simple lists of all people who have died by a particular means. The issue of ragging is an encyclopedic subject and has an article. The larger themes and the impact on society (including an appropriate overview of the press furor in India) should be handled in that article. -- SiobhanHansa 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - The topic is not notable. Ragging itself seems to be notable, especially in India, but not a list of deaths where ragging was named or suspected of contributing to the personal decision to take their own life (or in the single exception, the life of another). In one instance, the parents "suspected" ragging. In the homicide, after being repeatedly spurned by the victim, the "ragger" cornered the victim and in front of horrified girls and boys, hacked her with a butcher’s knife.[1] That cause of death doesn't fit the Indian Supreme Court's definition that ragging "has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment". I'm sure the Ragging Act has loads of verbiage that can be used quite handily for all sorts of offensive behavior. Why would a prosecutor stop at murder if they can pile on other politically loaded charges that would upset the vocal masses if they got overturned? Someone else mentioned the Lists of people by cause of death and I think the big difference between those lists and this one is that members of those lists have their own articles where each individual's notability can be established and debated. These people have no notability beyond the nature of their deaths. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per per Transhumanist or merge to the main article on Ragging. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another editor has already merged this into
    talk) 18:09, 15 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. -- Longhair\talk 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Apple J

Solo Apple J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced drink article, fails

WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment That's a valid stub, though it might not meet
    Jonathan 01:52, 23 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, jonny-mt 08:12, 1 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, SorryGuy  Talk  06:05, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doar Family

This article most certainly does cite refernces. And this family contributed a great deal to history in early America.

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

Delete as per

WP:NOTE; also unreferenced. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:28, 31 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, JERRY talk contribs 05:52, 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 this is a duplicate argh. shoy 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efi holden

AfDs for this article:
Efi holden (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so here we go. Prod reason was

WP:NOT A Car Maintenance Guide, and I agree completely. shoy 05:53, 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, per reasons explained below. Rudget. 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efi holden

Efi holden (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a Howto Guide Q T C 05:52, 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane series

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

Apparently contested prod (author deleted template without any explanation). This is non-notable web content/game. The only mention of notability from reliable, third-party sources is a passing mention in a NYT article that's about something completely different. About all that's in the article is an unreferenced discussion of the characters in the game. Gromlakh (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Not certain if gamezone qualifies as a reliable source, but the article on that page gives "significant coverage" Corpx (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak abstain --PseudoChron (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not every thing NYT mentions is notable.
    talk) 20:01, 8 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 05:47, 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 Keep. Article name and content/ quality issues should be handled by editors as they deem appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D's

AfDs for this article:
3D's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Term not notable, but cant figure out a CSD criteria for it. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP A google search for "Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning", with quotations results in 116 exact matches.

A google advanced search for kitanai, kiken, and kitsui, for results with all three terms (often in different sequences) results in 2700 matches.

This term is well documented in common usage, contains meaning beyond its strict definition and adds substantive information to other Wikipedia pages.

Repeatedly describing work as being of low social standing is simplified with a method for this defined work.

The generated call for deletion appears to be from an automated application running an algorithm for dictionary or encyclopedic terms, based on this it is likely this term easily qualifies for inclusion and the tag for review no longer necessary.

Please retain this Wikipedia page and thank you for the opportunity to explain the page's importance. Granite07 (talk)

Thank you to everyone for their inputGranite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The name should remain 3D's since the job is not what the focus is but what the 3D's are. I agree that additional text is necessary to place more focus on what dirty, dangerous and demeaning (difficult) is. As this is Wikipedia, someone with the right qualifications will add this material.Granite07 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I believe that this topic could indeed be notable (with a renamed article), none of the sources I see here can be
    WP:OR, as it's unsupported by sources and seems to describe what the production of a particular series might imply. I'm neutral about deletion, but there are some significant issues to resolve if the article is indeed to be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Made changes suggested by: Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων, UltraExactZZ and RoninBK.

1) Book Reference (dictionary) - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job

2) Expanded scope of article beyond laborers

3) Journal Article defining exact term "3D's" (accessible without proxy service) - [15]

4) Could not find use of term in television documentary (other than already cited), did find use in review of a movie [16]

hopefully this addresses everones concerns and allows this article to be removed from AfDs.

Thank You Granite07 (talk) 18:49, 31 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, JERRY talk contribs 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The title 'neologism' might be slightly misleading; it's had very widespread use in the academic literature on labo(u)r migration since the early-1990s (it's difficult to pull out ref's to 3D's that refer to labour migration, but there are a lot), and refers to a well documented, well defined concept. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've tidied the article and added some more refs. It was a mess, and completely ignored international labour migration. It's now in a much better state to build on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your changes are very good and highlight an important aspect of migrant labor that was absent. The page 3D is about voluntarily foregoing personal safety, working conditions and social status for a living wage not about exploited workforces and religious or cultural enslaving of a population segment. Low wages are a function of surplus labor not working conditions. Some work that is not dangerous or necessarly dirty is likely to have low wages due to its open availability to the widest possible labor segment.128.12.169.7 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asked for a mediator to help determine if we can gain consensus before continued rounds of editing followed by deleting whole sections of the page, there is room for both views on the same page, or maybe there should be an article written to address low wage immigrant labor issues. Granite07 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure we have the best title yet but the topic is certainly notable. I added this reference which cites many more sources: The Worst Jobs in History. See the entry on fuller, for example, to understand how easy we have it now. But there are many parts of the world which still work in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard of this 3D's before. I know the Japanese uses the term 3K to refer to the same thing, so the deletion is probably unnecessary. Renaming might help. -- Taku (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion about 3D, this is an American Neologism derived from Asian concept. Generally refers to American blue-collar unionized workforce. We may need a second page to address other uses of the term.Granite07 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about the concept "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding" not "dirty", "dangerous", and "demanding" jobs. The great majority of uses of the term (both academic and non-academic) refer to migrant workers, and of these the large majority refer to Asia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is exactly correct "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding", thank you for pointing this out. You are also correct about the "great majority of uses of the term". This term has a specific connotation as an American neologism specific to an occupation that embodies all three of these conditions. 3D work results in higher pay without requirements for education or special skills, this is the true defining nature. As you have pointed out, internationally this definition is also true for migrant workers looking for higher pay. Granite07 (talk) 23:59, 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 keep. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intercision

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

This article is an in-universe repetition of the plot of the His Dark Materials trilogy articles, which cover this in greater detail. There is no assertion of notability independent of the books themselves, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely in-universe and violation of
    a/c) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note to closing admin: If deleted,
    a/c) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as I see no real world coverage for this term Corpx (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A number of independent reliable sources discuss this. For example [17], and [18] links to an article in Children‘s Literature in Education which discusses this and compares it to castration. Also, the book His Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman's Trilogy, which is a collection of scholarly essays on His Dark Materials has a number of essays that discuss this. There are likely more examples, I only found these from a quick set of google searches. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 3 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, —Random832 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep major plot element in very notable series, discussed in the academic literature. For even those who don't like this sort of article in general, it does meet WP:N. Corpx, do you accept that is has real world coverage? DGG (talk) 22:11, 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 Speedy Delete per G11. TalkIslander 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exilant

Exilant (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Company appears to fail WP:CORP due to no reliable coverage apart from press releases. Therefore, nothing from which to expand the current listing, which is nothing more than a company directory. Travellingcari (talk) 04:48, 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 - Appears to be a

hoax - unacceptable on Wikipedia. Rudget. 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Dizzle, Jim

Dizzle, Jim (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published author Corvus cornixtalk 04:33, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical wiring (United States)

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

This is a completely unreferenced how-to article. It mentions the 2002 edition of the NEC, while the current edition of the NEC is 2008. Some information in the article was correct in 2002, and is incorrect after the release of the 2008 NEC. While this could be fixed, I think this article is mostly how-to. Worse, since Wikipedia is unreliable, and this article in particular is so long, broad, and completely unsourced, it should be removed. Electrical wiring is something left to a licensed expert. If done incorrectly, it can result in property damage or loss, and in injury or the loss of life. Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
    96 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article is not a "how to" guide - it is more a "how it is done" article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The differences between the appendectomy page and the wiring page are profound. The important is that this page offers prescriptive advice, but the appendectomy page doesn't. The wiring page says that certain equipment isn't required, when it is; the appendectomy page (wisely!) doesn't advise what equipment is required when performing an appendectomy. I'm not sure the appendectomy article is correct, but information in the wiring article is simply wrong: there are many cases where a 12 AWG wire is too thin to carry 20 amps, even if this article says otherwise. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see a caveat in this article. In fact, I see the opposite; for example, the article claims to provide information about wiring practices in the US. Fact is, in the US, local authorities (states, counties, and cities) can override or ammened the so-called National Electric Code at will. That is, what someone reads here as being applicable to their wiring project because they're in the US might not actually apply because the authorities having jurisdiction has overridden the code. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly appropriate start to an article. Needs to be rewritten and much expanded, as it is presently the barest summary of a complex topic. It is not even now, and never was, in how to do it format--anyone who thinks it is, should just take a look at the real books that are--and take another look at the article. DGG (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your inappropriate and unwelcomed advice aside, this artilce is a how-to. While it's not a step-by-step how-to, it offers perscriptive advice. For example, it recommends using certain devices in certain circumstances, or sizes of wire for certain loads. In both of these cases, the advice it offers is somewhere between wrong and incomplete. Indeed, there is a difference between the content of this article and a how-to book on wiring -- the h offer similar altruisms, but provide enough context that the advice can be safely understood and applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per DGG. Even if household electrical wiring was rocket science (which, contrary to popular belief, it isn't), we would still try to cover it in the greatest possible detail, without making paranoid disclaimers or replacing select passages of text with "ask your electrician/attorney/physician/guru for further information". As far as injury and loss of life go, "electrical error" is trivial compared to "medical error" or "driver error" (leading causes), but that's not terribly relevant. — CharlotteWebb 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lack of sources is an area of concern, but not a grounds for deletion. Also, as mentioned above,
    chat 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It may be just me, but that article doesn't seem like a how-to article at all. It's a great start to an informative article.
chat 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. It would be a great start to an informative article -- if some larger percentage of the information it contained was correct and current. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:40, 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. Notability verified by refs. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Bernasconi

Chelsea Bernasconi (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Why speedy was declined on this I'll never know... enough said. Dougie WII (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My guess, declined for this line "At age 13 she won a Gold medal in the World Junior Wushu Championships in Kuala Lumpur last August 2007 in the spear division." May not be enough for
WP:BIO though. Officially neutral.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 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. I am willing to userfy this for anyone who wishes to improve it in order to have it moved to a neutral article name. JERRY talk contribs 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Recession

Clinton Recession (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

...is not a term recognized by economists.

The recession was dated from March 2001 to November 2001 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the acknowledged organization that identifies and dates the recessions.

This recession officially started after Clinton had left office.

It is a term that has been used by some commentators with specific political orientation. While it is a good example of politically motivated interpretation of facts, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The phrase clearly has some currency and so the article should be retained, even if it is just as a redirect. The current proposed merge target seems to have an inferior title. And a merge does not require deletion so the matter doesn't belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. I didn't create the article in the first place, but I wrote most of the current content. I actually stumbled on the article, thinking it sounded like a biased name, but found a large number of sites using the term (9000 g-hits for "Clinton Recession"), from both left- and right-leaning points of view (the latter often rejecting it as a label, but their mention of it still implies that it was part of the discussion). ("Bush Recession" is also used, and receives more g-hits but many of them refer to an expected recession. The article mentions this name also and it redirects there.) But anyway, this article is not principally about the recession itself (the economic facts of which are covered in the Early 2000s recession), but about the dating controversy which occurred a few years later, which was seen as an attempt to blame the recession on Clinton. This was widely reported, as cited in the references, and seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The terms Clinton Recession and Bush Recession are not used by economists, it's true, but then Wikipedia's readers are not limited to economists and they seem to have been widely used in political discourse. However, if there is concern that having the title (if not the content) imply that it was a "Clinton Recession" (or "Bush Recession"), we could rename it Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy or the like, if that's deemed not too cumbersome. The material could also be merged into the Early 2000s recession article, although I think that is a less good choice, since the article includes the economic data for much of the world, and details about a political controversy that took place after the recession was concluded seems straying a bit from the topic. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Renaming it a "controversy", perhaps Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy would address my main concern. That is what the article is currently about, it is not really about recession as a topic in economics.
The terms like "Victorian furniture" and "Ming vases" describe things that happened during the named administration. Thus using the name of an administration is generally about naming the period.
For those interested in politics, I found 25,600 hits for "Bush recession" and only 8,830 for "Clinton recession"!
--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy sounds an awful lot like Early 2000s recession#Dating controversy in the United States. Might be a good reason to merge it into Early 2000s recession... -- mordel (talk) 16:38, 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 Closed as duplicate nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and salsa

AfDs for this article:
Soul and salsa (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Notability seems to be the problem here. Also, there was a speedy tag placed on this, but it was removed without any reason, by the creator of the article User talk:Soulandsalsa - what a coincidence! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a spam article with little/no real context. If the magazine became notable it would be worthy of an article. At the moment, it appears to be a mere e-zine or similar. SMC (talk) 03:08, 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), per

WP:SNOW. ChetblongT C 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

The page is just a summation of subjective viewpoints. Subjective rankings have no place in an encyclopedia. The tables are original research because they create their own index by combining multiple different sources. This is clearly an invalid way of extrapolating new data. It is evident that after reading the article that the subject itself is DEPENDENT on POV due to the highly different ratings by different people. This article should really be titled 'Opinion Polling of How Different Groups of People Like US Presidents'. This is plainly not scientific.

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbal Top

Gimbal Top (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

No context. Recreation of speedied article. Possibly spam. Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:32, 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 keep.

talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Vanessa Morgan

Vanessa Morgan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Non-notable actress. Claim to fame is a principle cast role in a series which isn't due to premiere until next month. She only has one credit previously in a TV movie. No secondary source coverage. Fails

WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, well that means the articles on Wikipedia about the show are wrong then. It still doesn't establish notability for the actress, though. Redfarmer (talk) 01:56, 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. Being a district attorney per se doesn't establish notability. The mentions in the external links are trivial, and do not tell why the subject is notable, neither does the article. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Borchers

Charles R. Borchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cleaned this article up so it sounded less like an obituary, but I'm still not sure this meets notability requirements for

WP:BIO. Bellhalla (talk) 20:20, 31 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, Sancho 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as a DA for a 3-county area. Needs to be re-written. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The legacy section convinces me that this person is sufficiently notable. It also tells me that there must be other sources out there for expanding the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable DA who did his job. Corvus cornixtalk 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the other DA's in Category:District Attorneys that I checked all held higher office or were otherwise notable. Borchers didn't and isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indications of notability other than being a well-liked DA. Notable cases tried? Political controversies? OK, he got a bust in the building he used to work in. I'm still not impressed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 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 Merge with Scholastic Corporation. JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic Parents Media

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD
)

Promotional tone; no third-party sources. Tagged for

WP:CSD#G11; speedy tag removed. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 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 keep.

talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Eveleigh Moore-Dutton

Eveleigh Moore-Dutton (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Notability has not been established. Additionally, a tag has been placed on the article since September 2007 asking for the article to be expanded, and it has yielded no effective response in terms of establishing notability nor of tidying up the article or adding any substantive content at all. In the light of this inaction, it seems reasonable to offer it up for deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see the results of these google searches anywhere in this article, which is how I consider it should be evaluated in this case. If you believe the chance of deciding to delete it can be reduced by including material taken from this google search, then shouldn't you or someone else have included the material and resferences (either before or now)? The article can always be re-created with properly argued notability features and references in the future if someone cares to do so if it is deleted as a result of this nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the current article should just be improved, rather than having to delete it then recreate it in a few weeks or months as the election draws closer. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJL, also the fact that she is now an European Parliamentary Candidate. She is also a member of one of Chester's most prominent families. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only then repeat what I wrote earlier: if these facts are true, where is the verified information in the article now which states this, given that there has been a template that highlights the need to include more information, etc since September 2007?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 15 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 - an obvious hoax, no need to wait five days. Article was a crude copy of the Vanessa Hudgens article. Gwernol 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Hudgens

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

I suspect this is a hoax. "Sofia Hudgens" is not mentioned at all in the reliable sources as far as I can see, but "Vanessa Hudgens" is. Google search for Sofia Hudgens doesn't bring up much, which I do not expect would be the case for somebody with such a varied and successful career as is claimed in this article.

disco) 01:03, 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. JERRY talk contribs 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CARE's Response to Avian and Pandemic Flu

AfDs for this article:
CARE's Response to Avian and Pandemic Flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. This article is basically an essay assessing the response of an organization to Avian and Pandemic Flu. All references are to

WP:NOT#OR. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 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. No notability, no assertion of verifiability through reliable, or any, sources. Rudget. 15:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and salsa

Soul and salsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. I'm getting tired of typing that sentence. Maybe we need a shortcut, like WP:NAoN or something. --Hyperbole (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • τ ʃ 01:04, 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 (the article was speedy deleted as per

A7
).

MashON

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

Thinly disguised advert for website at www.mashon.com. No Google hits. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The topic in question has no notability. In fact, the website is basically a store for a personal comic book creator. The website is still in beta. It is estimated that the website is viewed only four times a day. The user who created this page seems to have only made an account to make this page (assumption though since user is new). The user who created the page is currently the only contributor and the page does seem to be an advertisement for the website. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the page is simply not notable, I tagged the page for speedy deletion since the article does not need to suffer a process that could last days when it falls under the criteria to be deleted immediately. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is almost entirely about mashups. It certainly doesn't make any claim for the notability of MashON either as a "call to action" or as a website. --Hyperbole (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable neologism, a non-notable website and a load of blather about the significance of mashups in general, which are already covered under their own articles, but which does not address the notability of this specific subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mashups are notable, but this "MashON" is not. No sources attesting to the notability of the site, etc etc. Very badly disguised spam, in my opinion.
    disco) 01:06, 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.

talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A Stab in the Dark (Play)

A Stab in the Dark (Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play, article even indicates that it's a 'fringe' production. Prod tag was removed through inproper use of the undo function, and no reason was given to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been unfairly targeted for deletion. The cited links clearly establish notability. It may have been premature, but it certainly deserves to stay. Capitals should go, and poster image or cast images could be added.(129.96.130.236 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Strong Keep It in its current form, there is nothing wrong with this article. It meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. It is not unusual for characters in a play to be written in capitals. Some more information, such as "critical reception", would be useful though(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable at present. A very premature article. I did a bit of digging around to see if the author, Alex Vickery-Howe, might meet notability criteria (and therefore re-direct etc) but unfortunately he doesn't.•Florrie•leave a note• 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources.
    talk) 20:30, 16 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. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PB-244854

PB-244854 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article makes no assertion of

conflict of interest. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:17, 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.
  1. ^ Killer student gets death sentence Deccan Herald
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_9&oldid=1081074653"