Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 11

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

The result was delete – clearly fails

1iProductions

1iProductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be

• Delete The games have their own article, and from those and the hits on the games it doesn't appear that 1i Productions was the only one involved in it. No other works from the company are apparent, and the company appears to fail
  WP:N as no secondary sources reflect any information on this company. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:44, 3 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to find any reliable sources about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:39, 15 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 keep because there is no consensus for the article deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular expression examples

Regular expression examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

The problem with this deletion rationale is that the general audience reader (the target audience of all Wikimedia projects) has no clue what a Regular Expression even is. On that basis alone, the rationale for inclusion is pretty clear, we need to provide unfamiliar readers with some kind of context and a foundation.

For clarity, I will outline the specific problems with this deletion proposal:

• This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand ... tutorials

That's a good thing, it means that it's consistent with

WP:RS

. If there's any content within Wikipedia that cannot be found elswhere, then it shouldn't be in an article in the first place.

That was not the basis of my nominating the article for deletion. Rather, it was meant to imply that external regex syntax guides and examples can be linked to from the main regular expression article (and already are). Also, I'm not sure that the policy and content guideline you cited are relevant here. You verify a regular expression example by running it. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any basis for deleting WP content simply because it can be found on other sites. Perhaps you can strengthen this point a bit b/c the logic is not quite grabbing me yet. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful it can be moved to Wikibooks

That's a good course of action if you wish to expand the content into a full-blown book on how to program regular expressions in perl (or other languages as well), but that has nothing to do with whether this specific article on Wikipedia should be deleted.

Again, there are many topics within Wikipedia that are covered in more detail in Wikibooks and elsewhere. The question is not whether content is duplicated, the question is whether the content is appropriate on the basis of the material alone.

This again is not related to why I nominated the article for deletion. I simply mentioned it as a way to easily preserve the content for those who think it's useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but then let's save that discussion for after you've justified the deletion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook

Although correct, this point really does not apply to this article. Please take a close re-look at the content and notice that there is not a single sentence in the article that tells readers "how to". It's just a bunch of examples and explanations to help people understand the concepts and principles explained in the "regular expression" article.

What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to"? In any case, the current content is not even really based around examples. It is a (currently Perl-specific) regex syntax guide, with a basic example of using each construct that is introduced. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example code is commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Category:Articles with example code. You do realize, do you not, that not everyone who looks at a snippet of example code is a computer programmer. Just as not everyone who looks at an excerpt of poetry is a poet. Just as not everyone who looks at a cookbook is a chef. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of examples in Wikipedia articles is a well-established and respected convention. Please see just for a quick example:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(command-line_examples)

.

That's a straw man. I never argued against the use of examples in the main regular expression article. In fact, it already contains heaps of examples, which are generally quite relevant and useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Right after you said What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to" you also said I never argued against the use of examples. Please give yourself an opportunity to really get a solid and concise view of what you are really objecting to here. It will help focus the discussion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the rationale for having a separate article for this is also pretty straightforward. The Regular Expression article itself was getting very cluttered and crowded with examples, and this separation provided a good way to organize the content. In other words this was a stylistic and editorial decision that really had nothing to do with helping people "learn" how to program regular expressions. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. In fact, examples of all of the types of constructs shown on the

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're repeating yourself now. Unless you've something new to add, please feel free remain in your state of disagreement. Please also feel free to re-read the article and the point about Perl syntax being common to more languages than just Perl. All of your other (repeated) points have been directly addressed above. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My closing line was intended to be humorously redundant, but it didn't really work (at least you agree I got the redundant part). For the record, I know a lot about both the Perl regex flavor and most of the high-profile Perl-derivative flavors (expanding my knowledge of the greater regex flavor/library landscape is sort of a hobby for me). In any case, while I don't think the flavor-specific aspect of the regexes themselves is really relevant to this discussion, I do object to the use of Perl code to demonstrate generic regular expression examples since I think that is more appropriate in articles about Perl or e.g. a section of the regular expression article dedicated to Perl. In fact, I don't think generic regex examples should be described in the context of any programming language, since their use is certainly broader than that. --Monger (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your only substantive objection is the Perl-specificity, I'd actually agree with you on that also. The fact of Perl-emphasis in a RegEx article on Wikipedia is almost certainly more a function of expediency than completeness or academic rigor. To put it plainly, Perl gets more attention (in this context) simply because most people have at least "heard of" Perl and know it has "something to do" with regular expressions. Even people who don't know programming languages or regular expressions get exposed to this. That's just an artifact of history. On that basis alone it is a justifiable (if not optimal) choice to use Perl, if only because it's a familiar foundation that makes the article accessible.

That being said, a better solution to deleting the content would be to enhance the content. It would be *great* if this article actually touched on some of the broader use you elude to. The problem is once you "open the box" beyond the realm of widespread and mainstream programming language idioms, you immediately risk making the article a lot more turgid and incomprehensible to the general interest readers.

After all, lets be blunt, most people who have any interest in these articles are probably the types who are just trying to figure out some piece of code that looks like gibberish to them, and they don't want to look stupid when people in their organization talk about "regular expressions". Indeed, since WP is not a tutorial site, the primary beneficiaries of this and the main article are probably not even computer scientists or programmers (who already know there are better sites for language-specific specifications or tutorials).

Nevertheless, if you've got the acumen and sagacity to step out on that ledge and write up some solid, accessible enhancements, that do not confuse the general audience readers, I for one am cheering for you. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to continue this discussion between myself and dr.ef.tymac and we seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what content is encyclopedic, I'll just let my comments here so far stand. However, whichever way this goes I'd be willing to discuss further after the AfD. Monger (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In this rather special case, the topic is notable and the article should be expanded. I am not sure the title is hte best one; but perhaps it can be best seen a a subarticle for regular expression. DGG (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete much of the content of this page also appears in Regular expression. Transwiki to Wikibooks may be an option. --Salix alba (talk) 10:22, 9 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it useful. Another option might be to merge it with the main entry for regular expressions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki Its not a great article, but would make a great wikibook. transwiki to wikibooks RogueNinja_talk 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Regular expression. While long, this is not a topic that merits its own article. Examples of multiplication are found in thousands of math textbooks, but that doesn't mean they merit their own article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Also, the examples should be expanded, such as for use in text editors during search-and-replace. I am a computer scientist who has been using regular expressions for over 30 years, and I believe that the numerous, complex details to fully illustrate examples are far beyond the context of the overview article ("regular expression"). Dozens of examples are needed to explain the concepts, due to the complex interactions of various expressions and the subpatterns within. The examples for regular expressions aren't analogous to "multiplication" (or even long division) but rather more like examples of solutions (tricks) for partial differential equations. A wide variety of examples should be presented, which would be beyond the scope of the current overview article. Several scientists have complained that Wikipedia has tried to inhibit the presentation of knowledge within their fields. Forcing the numerous examples back into the main article would inhibit the presentation. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 18 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 delete. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity All-Star Game

Celebrity All-Star Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about the 2007 McDonalds celebrity all star game, NBA. While the article has no sources it is verifiable with a Google search. My concern is notability - I don't think it deserves an article. CastAStone/^/(talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While definitely verifiable, no independent, reliable sources are cited in the article, and Googling does not seem to yield any. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2007 NBA All-Star Game. Independent, reliable sources exist -- see here -- but this doesn't need an article of its own. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 3 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this hypergeneric title. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 11:50, 12 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 speedy delete.

Lolums

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

Doesn't seem to fit any of the blatant speedy criteria, so listing here. Delete per

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The animal within

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

Unreferenced, written like an advertisement, questionable notability of organization

• Delete This is blatant spam, why isn't it speedy? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously created for commercial reasons. Egdirf (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete G11, also some copy paste from [1], possibly more -- pb30<talk> 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete -
  WP:Copyvio AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:56, 11 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 withdraw. I didn't check this out properly before nominating it for deletion, and it appears that he is notable enough for an article. Egdirf (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Fox (actor)

Philip Fox (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about an actor whose notability is questionable. Many of his roles are small, and the article was probably only created due to recent events. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should perhaps explain a little more here. Philip Fox appeared in See It Saw It, a series in which the actress Natasha Collins also had a role. I feel that this article is only here becasue of the recent death of Miss Collins and the interest this created among certain Wikipedia editors. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot at all see why this page has been listed for deletion. I created it and, yes, I know it's a stub, but being a stub is no good reason per se for deletion. Plenty of other actor pages are stubs. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have waited until I had created the page. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by this comment? Are you saying that this person is notable but you wanted to create the page, not the other party? That's what it looks like to me, but I apologize if I misunderstood.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had placed the afd template on the page, but a keep was added to this discussion page before I'd had chance to do the necessary opening procedure. I thought the person should have waited, but it might have been ok for them to do this. I'm not entirely sure how it works. As for whether Philip Fox is notable or not, my nomination is really inspired by the recent Natasha Collins/Kate Crossley debates. Egdirf (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if I jumped the gun - this page should have been created straight after the nomination surely? Just wanted to get my comment in first. I argue that yes he is notable, and I wanted to create this page asap to defend that.Neddyseagoon - talk 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unlike Natasha Collins and Kate Crossley (which should indeed be deleted), Philip Fox does have a long career as a character actor. No doubt the page was indeed created because of the interest in Natasha Collins - but it deserved to be created anyway. - PinkEllie (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a look at the credits on IMDb[2] show he is notable, even if he tends to have small roles. Bob talk 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has a fairly long list of credits stretching back several years. We should keep and expand this article, and add a few good references.
  Paul20070 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I created the page as I noted him in the cast list of a just-broadcast episode of
  Foyle's War Series Six (creation edit here). I was unaware that he was linked to the Collins story. The link to that story was added by the unregistered user 88.109.118.83 9 hours later. Neddyseagoon - talk 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Then please accept my apologies. I should have checked the page history before this nomination. I see from the imdb that he has quite a long list of credits, so is probably notable. Having had time to reflect on my decision yesterday, I actually feel quite bad about the fact I have nominated this article for deletion. Am I allowed to withdraw the afd nomination? Egdirf (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:29, 12 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 delete - unreferenced article on minor character. KrakatoaKatie 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herko

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

A minor comic character that makes a single appearance is not notable enough for an individual article. The article is also entirely unreferenced. Nothing links to it. Prod has been removed by the author. DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• aCTUALLY I AM WRONG AND HERKO IS WAY COOL SO IGNOR DIZ ARTICLE (Unsigned comment by User:Woland37)

• Comment. I think the above comment is intended to be interpreted as a keep ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he was in one issue of Superman. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the time being. We haven't built the framework which would see a character as minor as this mentioned on Wikipedia yet. Hiding T 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:50, 15 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 no consensus to delete, nor consensus to keep the article, but the looks like the discussion is leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loci (band)

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

Speedy denied. Admins really should check the sources and not just claim that sources are shown to establish notability. All source are self published. Ridernyc (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes admins DO check sources. See: this one the article cites and this one and this one too and this one and this one also. It should be noted that the denial of a speedy is NOT an edorsement of the article NOR is it a statement that the article should not be deleted. Speedy deletion for A7 is only for cases where the article does not make any claims about being notable; this one clearly does, and so should be up for discussion. If these sources do not make the article notable, then everyone will agree with you. I am official neutral, and will make my decision later based on the arguements made by both sides in this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And editors should check speedy deletion policy before accusing admins of getting it wrong.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Iciclecake (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough sources to meet
  WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

what part of

WP:BAND? Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Iciclecake (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake[reply]

• Weak keep - based on the reliable sources that could be gleaned from a 27 entry reference list for a 5 sentence article. Seriously, that needs some editorial work to trim it down to actual usable references and sources instead of what appears to be a desperate attempt to make sure there are references to avoid a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My weak keep is based on very thin reliable sources which essentially boil down to a couple of articles from the BBC, one of which is rather short. They are this album review which is the most substantial, and this short article indicating they have received radio airplay. That's very weak in my opinion, but enough to squeak by on the keep side. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok-I have edited the sources down considerably today- hope this improves the article.Iciclecake (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this google search basically disproves notabilty [3]

35 google hits for The band name combined with the name of the EP. As far as meeting WP:Band, if someone wants to show me the source that shows they received airplay I'll be glad to look at it. As far as touring it has to be covered in reliable sources. Any band can book a tour getting it covered is the important part. Ridernyc (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the link I refer to in my note expanding on the reason for my weak keep nots that they have received airplay. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 15 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 Snow delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Thomson

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

suspected

• Delete as hoax. I'm a huge fan of
  Gonzo Studios, who are the proclaimed to be the producers of this anime. If it ran on Cartoon Network since 2000 I would've known about it. Nothing on their website - either in English or from the Japanese i can read. Zippo on imdb. Proclaimed to be airing on the Anime Network who don't have it listed as a current or former show I don't think that a Japanese studio would make an anime about a NN American. It first proclaims to have 160 episodes, then in the table, claims to have 29 episodes. OVAs don't run for 160 episodes (OVA equals "original video animation", almost always some sort of mini-series). Seems to be a hoax hacked together using otaku jargon by someone who clearly isn't. Doc Strange (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Echo Doc Strange's comments. Doesn't exist, plain and simple. A textbook case of
  WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is an obvious hoax.
  WP:IAR should be applied and the article deleted as quickly as possible. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, only added help the snowball roll down the hill. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the more poorly done hoaxes I've seen. Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 12 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 keep - referenced, including recent media attention. - KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Martin

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

Delete sad story, true, and newsy at the time, but not of lasting noteworthiness and

• Keep,
  Neo-Nazi movement in Germany. The subject has also once again be subject of media reports in December 07, see [4]. Note that I am the creator of the article and therefor slightly biased, Poeloq (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but it should be better referenced, and made clear that his notability is largely drawn on his announced intention to seek assisted suicide due to the permanent disability he suffered in the attack. He has received quite a bit of attention in German(y). --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Dhartung and Poeloq.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:53, 15 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Til Death Do Us Part (Philippine TV series)

'Til Death Do Us Part (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks any source or claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failed series that lasted one month. The article claims it was a major flop, but unable to find any news stories that indicate that it being a major flop, and gaining coverage due to its failure. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. A TV show that didn't do well is still considered notable such as 2000 Malibu Road and Some of My Best Friends. What it needs is valid sources. Starczamora (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you know, I've found some:

1. ABS-CBN feature about the show
2. Entertainment write-up about negative feedback (cited Jun Nardo of tabloid "Abante" as the source)
3. Part of a series of reviews on ABS-CBN's "30 New Shows for 2005", which included TDDUP Starczamora (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm quite open to a keep if there was any real significant coverage. The ABS-CBN coverage I would discount as it was a show for their network, and that materiakl is essentially a press release for themselves. The starcirclequest appears to be some community type web site and so it probably doesn't meet the threshold for a reliable source. And the Asian Journal mention is part of an overall column on upcoming programs. If there were news articles independent of ABS-CBN writing about it as a mjor flop, then I would be convinced of its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) A write-up about the show, whether written by ABS-CBN's PR department or other entertainment reporters, are considered valid under Wikipedia (case in point, Philippine Idol also features write-ups from its official website). 2) The second article obviously cannot be considered directly as a valid source. However, the article mentioned that it was "copied and pasted" from an old entertainment column in "Abante" (its website, however, has archives of up to 2007 while the article was written in 2005). 3) Asian Journal is a valid source, although the article came from INQ7.net (which has long been inactive). Starczamora (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Press releases are specifically not reliable sources as they are not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states that Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. In short, press releases can be used as sources if written to the article as descriptive and NPOV as possible. Starczamora (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, as they are self-written, do not substantiate notability. I am not saying the article is factually inaccurate, so the accuracy of information from a press release is not relevant. I am saying that the subject is not notable. If it is notable, it would have attracted press coverage. If the failure of the show was considered a major flop, then there would be articles about how this show was a major flop. I see no such articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated, as long as it is aired, a TV show is considered NOTABLE, flop or no flop (check my previous examples, which only lasted for several episodes). Also, considering how bad Philippine entertainment websites archive their previous articles, it's hard to search for write-ups about a subject that was shown in 2005. We would have to go to the library to do that, which is also the argument in Serena Dalrymple. Starczamora (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep TV series that aired are notable by default. --Howard the Duck 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 16 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansehra International Public School

Mansehra International Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Article containing bad grammar and reads like an advertisement, has had cleanup tags for a year and no attempt has been made to remedy the article The tim (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. the wub "?!" 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination contains no grounds for deletion. Certainly the page needs a thorough clean but that is no reason to delete. International schools are unusual and therefore generally notable. We have little enough coverage of education in Pakistan and deleting one of the few pages we have doesn't seem like a great idea.
  talk) 03:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: no attempt has been made to clean this up for too long, it appears it will never be cleaned and needs a fresh start. 203.109.169.70 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - which, again, is not a valid deletion ground.
  talk) 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I'm a bit concerned about sourcing. I can't find a school web site and I'm not yet sure about the reliability of the Web sites I've seen in a Google results list. Pakistani schools are important subjects, and we should try to provide sources. The school is located in the
  talk) 18:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - As a start, I have stripped the page down by removing the ad material and added material and independent sources to meet
  talk) 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I'm impressed with TerriersFan's work. I've looked at the sources, one of which I had doubts about before, and they appear to be reliable. The objections to the article have been overcome.
  talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Thanks to the work of TerriersFan this article easily meets the criteria for article inclusion. We need more articles on schools in Pakistan like this. 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'88 Demo

'88 Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on what appears to be a demo for a not spectacular band. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete hmmm...said band seems notable, signed to notable label Roadrunner Records. However, demo itself isn't very notable Doc Strange (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know the band and had the demo back in the day, but still not-notable enough. Merge into band page if really necessary. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable recording from a barely notable act.
  talk) 09:12, 16 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 keep – well-referenced article, meets

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

)

• Keep. As one of the freelancers who work for the Danish publisher of Disney comics, I can assure you that INDUCKS is useful on a daily basis. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  Wikipedical (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Neutral, for newly added sources. --
    Wikipedical (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. The project's indexed data are extensively used not only by users, but even by most Disney publishers all over the world. And they credit the project often on their actual paper publication. That'd be kind of weird if the site really violated any copyrights at all. If there are problems with some of the contents of this article (like the claim of being the second largest comics db) of course they can be solved by rephrasing or removing those contents. Lazarus Long (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this is very useful and serious source of information. Philou1024 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No, Collectionian, the article is not "purely promotional in nature". It has got an interesting section of history, among other things. But I agree that the sentence about being the second largest freely available comics database should be removed if there is no source for it. --
  EIRIK\^talk 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I just added a few scholarly and independant sources. I would like also to correct some of the criticisms of Collectonian.
  • The site is purely promotional in nature: first the Inducks is non-commercial and distributed under a free licence. Second it seems to me that the real names mentioned in this article (some of which are not people of Inducks like Per Starback) were copied from articles to this Wikipedia entry. If you look at the main website, you'll see that the contributors names are very well hidden. So I don't see any promotion goal, although I would actually prefer to remove most names since they're not of much interest.
  • Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability: I removed that sentence now (which was not on the website BTW), but with 80,000 indexed comics it surely is noticable.
  • Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. I have added lots of other sources scholar and external, please have a look at them. There is no study per se on Inducks, but it's an established and recognized source of information (especially for Disney publishers who use codes that were originally made up by Inducks).
  • Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights. Actually no: Inducks does not contain any image, Outducks does. It is a collection of fan websites that provide thumbnails of covers and stories. An Inducks search engine, COA, has links to those thumbnails, but those are not hosted on inducks.org. Herve661 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) PS: I am the main author of the article.[reply]

• A site doesn't have to be a paid site to have a promotional article. For the copyright, I thought I'd linked to an example, but guess not. This is the link for their page on Goofy[5]. The page does not say "hey, we don't host these images" and if OutDucks is part of InDucks, it is really the same thing. Also, notice they very clearly invite people to upload more scans of images, which is certainly a copyright violation and a clear indication that they support these images. There is only a single tiny note at the bottom of the COA pages noting the images belong to Disney, and that's it. No mention of their having permission or anything. Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You linked to it here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_11#Template:Inducks_character. However, I dont know if the note at the bottom is sufficient but when such images is used on wikipedia for example there is not even a note, You must go to the image page to se that it is a copyrighted image. Skizzik (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If you think the article is too promotional, I suggest to improve the text (I just removed a few names) rather than remove the article. Outducks is indeed a separate project (the domain names are owned by different entities). At this page, it says for instance "picture from outducks.org". There are a few images of the (main) characters without this notice indeed, but these are still hosted on Outducks. I believe this is fair use (just like GCD has lots of covers or even Wikipedia has lots of images under fair use - and here it is not even inducks but outducks). The logo image of Inducks on this article is also a copyrighted image, reproduced by fair use, and you may upload images through Wikipedia, so the situation is similar to me. Herve661 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the one who created the article. The onus is on you to ensure it meets
  WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates to help with learning how to format references. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, I did not create this article, user
  Entheta did. Regarding the fact that Disney publishers use Inducks storycodes - I don't know if it's documented anywhere, but it's not difficult to see: the codes starting with "ZM" or "YM" that Inducks introduced (for Mickey Mouse daily strips or sunday pages) can be found in Gemstone comics. US comic-books codes (the Inducks way, like "W DD 99-01") are used by the Dutch publisher Sanoma. Likewise, Gemstone uses codes like "S 63001" (a la Inducks) instead of the previous Disney way, "S 3001". Here is an image from "Love Trouble" in Walt Disney's Comics 671, a recent issue, which has a printed "YM" code, and here is a message from 2003 which explains that Inducks invented these storycodes. Herve661 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) PS: improved a bit the ref. layout.[reply
  ]

• Ah, my mistake. You've done the majority of the editing and I thought I'd seen where you created it, but must have misread. Still, the idea is the same. Those making the claim have the burden to prove it with a valid, verifiable source. If the idea that Disney publishers are using Inducks storycodes is not documented anywhere, then that claim is now
  original research and not something verified as a "reliable source." A Google news group post is NOT a valid source in any way shape or form.Collectonian (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not extrapolating, I know perfectly what I'm talking about and was just trying to give some elements to convince people that I'm not adding wrong information, even though one may argue about the relevance of one source or another. I hope other users among Disney comics fans will be able to confirm this well-known fact. Herve661 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, that is not verifiability. Read the page
  WP:V. Verifiable means it has been documented in by a neutral, reliable third party source. Otherwise, it is just speculation and guess work. No matter how "educated" it is not verifiable and, as such, should not be included in the article or used as a claim of notability. Collectonian (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I just wanted to give some elements here that I thought could be useful to the discussion. People who knows a bit about Disney comics will have no problem agreeing with what I wrote. We can remove this fact from the article until someone has a "proof". Herve661 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. I guess this is a problem with the very nature of the subject: Disney comics aren't very popular in English-speaking countries. On the other hand, they are very popular in some other countries. See for example the intro section at
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply
  ]

• All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. So, you're saying that sources in other languages than english are not reliable? I object to that. The reason that it is hard to find neutral news sources concerning the database is quite obvious; not many major news sources are interested in dealing with comics, and even less with databases about comics. But this project doesn't gain anything by "promoting itself". The use of Inducks codes by publishers of Disney comics is a well-known fact in the business. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Collectonian, I'm David Gerstein, Archival Editor with the North American domestic Disney comics (published by Gemstone), and I can confirm that Inducks is an invaluable resource in our production system. It helps us just as it helps any publisher, by helping us keep track of which stories have been published where and from which of our overseas sister publishers we'd do best to order specific pieces of material. I can also vouch for the alacrity of the international articles referenced, in case my voice as a domestic insider is somehow more helpful (though it shouldn't be... I'm sorry to see my colleagues having to defend themselves like this). Ramapith (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient sources for notability.DGG (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons I gave in the discussion above. (
  Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Keep The list of sources and references is there to prove it, european languages or not. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not saying yea or nay, just commenting on the nominator's points. Violates numerous Disney copyrights? To my knowledge, not in any more substantial way than Wikipedia "violates" copyrights through bajillion Fair Use images. Most of the stuff in INDUCKS is low-res scans of covers, title pages and single panels. Plus, it's not like Disney would have shut them down over their long operation. On the contrary, I even spotted a link to INDUCKS in
  WP:EL probably has to be clarified; if we only allow "licensed" content and not Fair Use, we'll need to brutally delete a whole lot more of links. A lot more. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works states that there shouldn't be any links to sites holding material violating copyrights. However, Inducks doesn't contain any images that might violate any copyrights. Instead, these images are part of Outducks (a separate project, not part of Inducks). There was a discussion about this at Talk:The Pirate Bay#Removing links to The Pirate Bay, and the conclusion seemed to be that it was possible to link to The Pirate Bay
  from the article about that site, since the site didn't host any material violating copyrights (it just links to such material).
• If linking to Inducks isn't possible, then just remove the links. The information about the site could still be shown there.

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

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

The result was delete as

It's not original research, but I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. Joe routt (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the content is questionable, and it's too minour to warrant a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'K this is a pretty darned obvious merge per the guidelines of
  suimmary style split from the character that was never warrented. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete It is a very bad
  WP:PLOT completely even though it doesn't work). --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Fairly unnecessary & described more succinctly on the character's own page. Merge the relevant bits and a-go. Papacha (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not worth merging, it is after all, a phrase. Hiding T 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:16, 16 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 keep due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce Strategy Center

Workforce Strategy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be mostly advertising, but there does seem to be an assertion of notability. Delete uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SPAM. Reads very much like a company trying to increase their hits online, therefore making wikipedia their inroad to notability. To prove it, a google "news" search reveals exactly zero results for this organization. If they were notable, wouldnt' somebody write about them independently? Keeper | 76 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I hope you will consider the comments my colleague and I have made in Talk:Workforce Strategy Center in support of the Workforce Strategy Center article. Thank you. Jalssid (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisig.
  ^T/C 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This seems to be a notable entity per
  WP:CORP, being covered to some extent in various significant publications. The problem is not with the entity but with the writing, which sounded too much like a press release; I have edited it somewhat to correct this. Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 11 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, J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Herostratus (and anyone else), do you have any links that you could provide that show coverage in various significant publications? I wasn't able to find any. Keeper | 76 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notwithstanding my deletionist tendencies it does seem to be well enough sourced (now - the article has been improved very recently) to show a degree of Wiki-notabilty. Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First, thank you all for your comments and for your help with the article. As you can probably tell, we are new to this. In addition to the current links in the article, Workforce Strategy Center has received coverage from major publications that either charge a fee for access to their archives or (so far as we can tell) no longer have their articles available online. For example, we have been written up a number of times in The Chronicle of Higher Education which charges for access to their archived stories. Is there a way stories such as the ones in The Chronicle might be referenced in the article? I would be happy to provide citations. Thanks. Jalssid (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is absolutely OK to use Chronicle of Higher Education and other paid sources for references. External links must be available without charge, but not references--they can come from any published source, print or online, paid access or free access, English on non-english, as long as they are available in some way to the public.CHE is available in thousands of libraries. and many people here (including me) can provide copies of individual online articles to individuals use in writing or verifying an article. Once you have, them, you can include a short quote from them of a sentence or so to demonstrate the notability of make a point in the article. You presumably have an archive of where stories on you have appeared. Just use them. DGG (talk) 01:45, 12 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 Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eloptic energy

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

)

• Delete unless article gets some sources - good sources. Springnuts (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources at all? Shame. Its a good name. Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Practically nonsense. DGG (talk) 21:51, 12 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 Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan Ruffy

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

A non-notable actor and singer who does not meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No evidence of notability. This might even be a hoax "He is currently unmarried, and has, to his knowledge no children". --
  talk) 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as hoax notability not established --Melburnian (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It might not be a hoax. These google new s search results would seem to indicate the person actually exists and played some small parts in plays. But, that's the full extent of coverage that I could find so, no reliable sources about the subject means he isn't notable by wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks hoaxy to me. Lankiveil (talk) 11:26, 15 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 delete - fails

American Safari Cruises

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

Clearly an

• Delete. I was the editor that removed the speedy (to give this one time despite the obvious
  WP:SPAM. Keeper | 76 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at the moment it's just an advert. Deb (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is definitely not in any kind of good shape as it is. With a lot of rewriting and work, it may no longer be an advertisement and might have notability. But someone needs to step up and do some major revision for this article to be considered for keeping. I won't mark delete, because of the chance someone might just come along and fix this article.
  talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment

so fix it. Keeper | 76 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I would contend that there is simply nothing here worth keeping. Even if the article is shifted so it is not spam anymore, the notability of the company is so hopelessly weak. There are only maybe three things that could be considered mentions in outside sources, and they all suffer major reliability issues, a review and a passing mention if memory serves me correctly. Reviews aren't notable. Even the NY times reviews books that wind up sucking, and unless they suck so bad that they become notable for it, the review doesn't justify its mention here, and this source isn't a percent as noteworthy as the NY times. Also, a passing mention in a news post about something else is hardly notable. Guess what, I was in a news broadcast too because the TV station did an article on the asston of snow we got last year. Doesn't mean jack about me.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:17, 16 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 delete. The band fails

Scylus Creed

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

Contested prod. Procedural nomination, no opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no assertion of notability per
  WP:MUSIC. Also, the article Chris Cambra, is equally non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Based on Wikipedia's Music Guidelines the band must be signed to a well known indie, Metaledge Records has Lionsheart on their label who has Steve Grimmett who was the lead singer of multiplatinum group Grim Reaper. Lionsheart has equally had success and multiplatinum statusMetaledgeinc06 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No albums yet, most google hits seem to be self promotion. Six degrees of separation to a notable band is insufficient. Pburka (talk) 19:37, 12 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge

Great Jedi Purge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

It has also been three years since its last AFD, and there is still no assertion of any notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a great Jedi purge of our own? --

talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep If you read the article you see it has an extensive section on the
  Star Wars Expanded Universe that is outside of the Episode III story line. Does the article need work? Yes. Does it need to be deleted, NO. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does it need to assert notability? Yes. Has it? No. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that cause for clean-up? Yes. Is AfD clean-up? No. Masterzora (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for cleanup, because if there is no notability, there nothing to "cleanup", as the article is unable to improve in a significent way, so the path is toward deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of notability != notability. If your problem is that you believe it's non-notable, don't state that the problem is a lack of assertion of notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep And add notability template and possibly a refimprove template. Reliable sources can be found and added at any time for the expanded universe section. Rray (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be kept? It is just a massive expansion on a small part of the movie article, which covers this extremely well in a very brief way. And if there are references, please demonstrate some, as this has been here for a while without any, and to tag in and wait when there is no reason to believe any are about to show up would be pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comments. This isn't just the MOVIE. It relates to the expanded universe, and the deaths/purge that occured in the books, etc. That is a notable difference, the addition of many Jedi not otherwise mentioned in the movie. To people interested in teh Stare Wars Universe, the larger Jedi Purge is certainly notable.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the extended universe aspect is notable at all, we need references to demonstrate it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you on the need for citation. I am only disagreeing with you on its notability.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsability of those who would keep the article to justify, at least with one, hopefully multiple sources in order to satisfy notability. You could even promise that you have information establishing its notability, and if you needed time to get it, it would be given to you. But just saying "it's notable" in this case isn't enough. Find a few references and I will withdraw the AFD, but if you can't, you should agree with me that it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References can be added anytime. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Rray (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you cant establish it has any by the time this AFD is over, it should be deleted as there is no evidence it is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. The consensus was keep for the last AfD, so it might swing that way this time too. Rray (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why? There has been no improvement, there are no references, it's just a massive inflation of one incident from the movie, and the Featured article on the film already covers it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating that it's just an incident from one movie over and over again won't make that suddenly true. It's also covered relevant to multiple expanded universe topics. Rray (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, I agree that the article needs some major work, but it is important outside of the Episode III. Think about episodes IV-VI. If Palpatine had never issued the order to wipe out the Jedi, hundreds more Jedi could have fought the Sith, the Rebellion would have gained more support, and their ranks would have swelled dramatically. Luke wouldn't be the sole Jedi fighting both Sith lords (Obi-Wan and Yoda didn't do much in terms of actual fighting), and he would've received better training. They would have also exposed Palpatine to the Senate, and many delegates would not have blindly supported his push to create an Empire. Now think about the Expanded Universe. Once again, Luke would've had more support, and he wouldn't have needed to completely rebuild the Jedi Order. Because he did have to rebuild, many of the policies of the Old Republic Jedi were changed; marriage, for example. Also, Jacen wouldn't have watched Anakin slaughter the Jedi, including the younglings, and that might have influenced his decision to become Darth Caedus. There are more ramifications of the Great Purge that prove its notability, but frankly, I'm running out of room, and I would like to find some references if I can. Grey Maiden ^talk 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this does not establish notability through reliable sourcing, and does not justify a huge article on a 2 minute segment in the 6th Star Wars movie. And as the Expanded Universe information also has made no assertion of notability, why would we include it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The same deletion argument does not necessarily apply to all articles on the subject. Some of the ones nominated in this group are trivial enough to be merged, or contain excessive detail for an general encyclopedia, and I've !voted merge or delete for them, as individually appropriate after carefully examining the article. The careless practice of indiscriminate nominations wastes the time of us all--the important articles should stay, and the merging of the others does not require AfD. DGG (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and this is a perfect example of an article that should be deleted, as this information is already covered in a featured article in one to two sentences, so why would we massively balloon that plot section of the film article when it was featured in its trimmed and well written current form? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, while the event itself only lasted four minutes onscreen, the effects of the Purge spread throughout the galaxy and had major impacts on the galaxy for the next sixty or so years. The events leading up to, and the reprecussios of, Order 66 are far too important to summarize in "one or two sentences," as you called it. Grey Maiden ^talk 23:38, 16 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 keep – meets notability requirements as subject of a short documentary film (which is listed at IMDB as the winner of an award from a small film festival, for what that's worth) and an Esquire article. - KrakatoaKatie 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Adams and the World's Most Dangerous Polka Band

Ruth Adams and the World's Most Dangerous Polka Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy delete and contested. Dispute as to whether current article meets

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The award-winning short film about the band is sufficient as a third-party reference to establish notability. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." --Eastmain (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition tob the film, they have press coverage about them like this Minnesota Daily article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oops. That's a university newspaper which isn't regarded as a reliable source. The other ones are from the Star Tribune which is a reliable source but the articles are behind pay walls. But still a keep for me based on the Start tribune and other perss. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is a university newspaper any less reliable than a regular daily? I've worked for both, and in my experience, the production values and the care with which the paper was created was MUCH superior at the university paper. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability establishment is shaky at best. I don't see "multiple non-trivial published works" that qualify as reliable. Just that supposed film. Besides, none of this supposed notability is actually established in the article. The only actual article material I see that might even qualify as claiming notability is the notice of inclusion in a show that failed faster than most people blink. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, Let's Bowl lasted for 2 seasons on CC, a season more than

I'm With Busey, Kid Notorious, etc. And why do you say "supposed" film? The film exists, is available for purchase, and has won awards at film festivals. Dislike the entry all you want, but don't try to discount reliable sources by making them sound as if they are not so. -206.188.172.30 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. An appearance on Comedy Central is definitely notable. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:19, 15 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 keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASPIRA

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

)

While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ORG. Longevity of the organization -- the organization is almost 50 years old and has spawned numerous organizations around the country, including a national organization. It was also a litigant in a major public school education lawsuit in the early 1970s. Google news, google scholar, and even google books show numerous cites. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 16 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lquilter. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:45, 19 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Delaney

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

Non-notable wrestler. He worked as a "jobber" (a person that loses to the known people) for a few ECW television shows for World Wrestling Entertainment, and that's it. He has no contract with the company, and it's wrong to just crystal ball he will be getting one. Many people over the years have had his role, and a good percent aren't notable. There is no proof Colin is notable at this time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per above, and the fact that WWE does not acknowledge the man with his own profile and he has no real role in WWE or previous background information. Striking out deletion vote same as per <sSuriel.--
  SiGn 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep- per the discussion on the
  thew 20:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. Keep - I'm working on it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at
  WT:PW. Cheers, LAX 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep article is currently under work. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs time to develop. Deleting this article would be like demolishing a planned building while in the middle of construction. Just be patient. This article will be expanded as times passes by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.176.55 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I see both sides of the argument and both are valid. I think this should be marked "No Consensus" because we can't keep this AfD open indefinitely just to wait and see what happens on ECW. GetDumb 21:03, 16 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 Kanji with 10000 words

300 Kanji with 10000 words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. NN per

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Sounds a very handy thing, but not a notable one. --

talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Google returns only 20 results. Weak article in wiki, weak resources in google (I don't found official website of this book). Zerokitsune (talk) 03:08, 12 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 Speedy A7 by Hiberniantears. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vin_DiCarlo

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

This "article" is completely self-referential, and reads as one very large advertisement for this corporation. There are also many extremely unsubstantiated claims. Shouldn't such grandiose claims be backed up with reliable sources? And the article is poorly written and not in any way "encyclopedic". Shouldn't the articles on Wikipedia at least appear to be unbiased and objective? RuebenStoker (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G11 per Dennis. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 11 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jamaican athletics

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

)

• Keep and Rename - Rename the article to
  matt91486 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It shouldn't be renamed 'sport in Jamaica as this article is specifically about track and field. 'Sport in Jamacia' would encompass a lot of cricket for instance, and there's already plenty of material on that elsewhere. Jamaica is incredibly successful in Athletics, given its small size, and there's more than enough information to justify this piece. If this needs rewriting a little then edit it. Nick mallory (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless a copyvio, as a not-badly written overview, but it should actually be named athletics in Jamaica. Punkmorten (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but re-write in a less-hurried style, and rename as per User:Punkmorten. - fchd (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per all above comments. Also just wanted to bring up that this article is move protected and will require an admin to carry out the move (I closed as keep and rename earlier to find this out.) TonyBallioni (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]