Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< June 9 June 11 >

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of the Dead

Realm of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn videogame; no indication of its importance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have access to American or European gaming magazines. The game was released on 2006, so I think that it should have more presence in the net. I may have downgraded my Delete to Weak had the game been released in the 90's as the majority of the sources for older games are still in magazines rather than online.--Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to keep this in any format, whether standalone or merged. If someone wants to make redirects, feel free. I don't know the subject well enough to know if they are plausible search terms. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Data Resource

Digital Data Resource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a relatively obscure neologism. I couldn't find any sources that used this term in this way, and none are included in the articles.

Also included in this nomination:

  • Delete article is a muddled waffle of neologisms with little context. --neon white talk 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Data Reference Model, since the information would only have any semblance of sense within that context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No opinion on merger, but it seems obvious that some kind of context is needed to make this read like anything other than utterly vacuous and abstract tautology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to Data Reference Model. I don't like merging unsourced material particularly when it is so unclear. Smile a While (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can find this term being used in published literature in 1993. Take a look at books.google and scholar.google for use of this term in both published books and in journal articles. --Oldak Quill 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as barely a
    WP:DICTDEF, and not sourced at that. No hits in Google News / News Archive to establish notability, which isn't asserted in the article anyway.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Firstly, there is a reasonably clear emerging view that this is notable. Secondly, while there is indeed a housing program by this name, as far as I can construe from Swedish translators and the DE Wikipedia, this is more than just a housing estate: it's actually a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden. WilliamH (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hageby

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

Delete basically a housing estate, not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - my sweedish isn't that good, but best I can tell this is just an apartment complex --T-rex 03:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be a real and distinct district [1] that even has it's own shopping center (called the "Hageby Centrum") and there seems to be plenty of reliable sources either about this area or references to it.[2]--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the Google News hits found by Oakshade there are plenty of book references also found by Google. I wish people would do simple searches like these before wasting eberyone's valuable editing time by nominating clearly notable articles for deletion.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAJOLE

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

Is this article really notable enough for an article? I believe that more information (which I have been unable to find) is need to establish the notability required.

talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to wikt:cajole. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article doesn't assert notability and the article hasn't been improved since the last AfD which seemed to be the the bulk of the keep arguments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this topic doesn't deserve an article. A language that has been the topic of published literature http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/3069/ --Oldak Quill 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability. The published literature is the paper itself. If it were notable, it would be referenced elsewhere. I can be convinced by cites that show this, but I can't find any myself at Google, Google News, or online university library search.  Frank  |  talk  18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus was clear. In addition, the page is wholly unsourced and, despite the extended time, no evidence has been adduced that this record (hey that dates me!) meets

talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Bedroom Boom

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

Not notable  Chzz  ►  00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With 66,000 ghits, I'd say this is more than one of the countless unnotable hip-hop songs out there. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Koh Siak Peng. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esateys

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

No reliable sources suggesting notability. A self-published book via

talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to back up the description as "international speaker", so scratch that. The book is self-published, so scratch that. That leaves the subject as an internet radio host on what I dare say is a non-notable website. Without audience figures or some other assertion of notability, she's YAP – yet another podcaster.9Nak (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability when searching through Google, and Google news. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent reliable sources could be found after a reasonable search. All refs are to her press releases, book sales, or promotional websites (her own and her partners'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Losers

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

Fails to assert notability per

(talk)(email) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

If you had checked the talk page or the deletion log, you'd have known that we have permission to use the content from that other website. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If deleted, a redirect to Beautiful Losers should be kept. 23skidoo (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are you saying Rjd0060--that Wikipedia article's can be copied and pasted word for word from web sites which promote them? That is not really acceptable. It might be deemed
    WP:SPAM. Artene50 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, I'm saying that your speedy delete as a copyvio argument is null, as we have permission to use the copyrighted text. If I were to vote on this AfD, I would say Delete, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-mt 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Kern

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

Singer/songwriter/producer with single album. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 acknowledgement of notability by nominator and absence of any other delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Integrated Circuit Conference

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

I consider this a bit of a test case - it's a yearly conference, but it's a scientific conference that's not likely to get much press attention. Only source is an external link to the conference. Lots of hits on google, but it's because of all the conference publications, doesn't seem to be extensive coverage from secondary sources. Wired (magazine) coverage of the conference would be adequate, but top hit after the conference page proper is wikipedia. Should it be deleted? I think so. I also would consider adding the conferences I found at Very-large-scale_integration#Conferences. They're stubby, sourceless and circular for the most part. WLU (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also considering
bundling the other pages but I'm not sure as I've never bundled - any suggestions from regulars would be welcome! WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, were those references in the article, I wouldn't have AFD-ed it. That's actually enough for me to assert notability, though this may repeat if they're not included. WLU (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Jenner

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

Deleted prod. Was: Does not appear in any way notable. Related to some notable people? yes, notable? no. NrDg 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited. Article does not assert individual notability for the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, notability is not carried in genes (unless your surname is Hilton). —97198 talk 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinkadelica 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Not delete. The consensus here is to not delete this, but it is also split as to whether to leave it standalone or merge it somewhere else, likely Common room. The article is improved from the previously deleted version, and improved since this AFD was opened including sources. A merge discussion should happen though, I'll leave that to the talkpage of the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student lounge

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

Was just deleted a few minutes ago. I'm not sure if this is a re-creation or not, but it's mostly a dicdef either way. Since I'm not sure it's a re-creation, I'm taking it to AfD instead of G4ing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete given the first AfD was closed as speedy delete "without prejudice against future recreation", then its right we discuss this again. However this remains pure
    dictionary definition. Gwernol 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
well obviously it is a recreattion, but it is not a recreation of the original article, its a recreation of the same topic but written as an encyclopedia article instead of as a dictionary definition. i can find some sources if necessary.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources to the article, the concept is unique architecturally speaking and is an important part of the college experience, furthermore it gets 2.4 million ghits! so i say keep or at the very least merge with student union.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are for a design competition, not for the contents of the article, which are still
original research and as Carlossuarez46 says below, they don't rise above a dictionary definition. Gwernol 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
comment, no reason for this room to be treated any differently.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do have an article for Classroom --T-rex 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also appears to be a mainly American-centric idea since I don't know of any such rooms in UK students' unions. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Common room, which is effectively the same thing as a student lounge. ~~ [Jam][talk] 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they do exist in the UK, we have one at Oxford Brookes for instance. I just don't see the point in having an article on it. Do we have one for student bar? No. -- roleplayer 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out own comment, no opinion at present. -- roleplayer 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTtake a look at Category:Room stubs, there are nearly a hundred similar articles on all sorts of rooms and much short and completely unsourced however they are notable, think about it, they don't have "student lounges" in the UK so a British exchange student can look it up and find out, and what better place than wikipedia? The subject is clearly notable, it just needs better sourcing, but why not improve it, instead of delete it? Please also consider Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance Myheartinchile (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment cmon, we even have an article about a Coffee table book!!!1Myheartinchile (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've tried to spruce up the article somewhat, and would like to think it's improved enough to change some minds. I'd appreciate it if those who already voted took a second look. From what I've seen, it's not exactly an easy area to research but it has the potential to expand quite a bit, especially if someone at a university wants to pull up some of the sources I couldn't find the text of but looked promising on google scholar and JSTOR.Coanda-1910 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote - keep or merge. I don't see a problem either way as the article stands now. If it grows a fair amount more, it might need to stand on it's own to not overshadow common room, but that's not a problem now. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per info about student lounges being linked to academic success, added sourcing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate the attempt to 'fix' the article but the sources still don't really cut it. Shereth 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, one study that was not directly linked to the subject doesnt really equal notability. The article still doesn't assert why the subject is notable. --neon white talk 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable because they are at almost every college and university in the United States! thats why.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a criteria for notability according to policy. --neon white talk 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Roleplayer said earlier, every university has a student bar, but we don't have an article for that.... ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a student bar is not as common as you'd think in the US, but that's neither here nor there. Basically, I reiterate my earlier vote -- source it all you like, but there is no earthly need for an article on such a trivial subject. It'd be like having an article on dorm rooms when we already have one on dormitories. Haikupoet (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haikupoet, Wikipedia's
notability criteria are based on the availability of sources for a good reason. By relying on independent, published sources to decide what is notable, we avoid imposing our own judgments on articles. The foundation of an encyclopedia is that it summarizes and reports information that other sources have deemed worth writing about. This avoids us being plagued by endless arguments about whose opinion of what is trivial should be followed. Since this article now has such sources, we should not interject our personal standards on this matter and follow the notability criteria - this subject is notable per the sources and we should have an article about it. Best, Gwernol 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Gwernol, you might want to read the sources first. Most are connected to the subject of the article tangentially at best. They are sociological studies that were conducted in a student lounge, not writings ABOUT student lounges. There is also a design competition that was won by a design for a student lounge but again the source is not about student lounges at all. There is just no need for this article. I would urge all here to check out
L0b0t (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What he said. Sources are nice, but I can easily come up with sources saying 2*2=4. That doesn't mean an article on multiples of two is warranted. By hammering on WP:V, all you're doing is missing the forest for the trees. And not even all of them, just one of them. Haikupoet (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-mt 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kviar

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

Not notable? I can only see one news reference, not at major sources, and brief. Company does not seem significant enough for notability.  Chzz  ►  22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - The article does list sources, even though it is very peacock-ish. I would suggest keeping the article, but with a nice {{cleanup}} tag at the top. TN‑X-Man 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't appear notable enough for inclusion. The only purpose this article seems to serve is as an advertisement and
    Wikipedia is not an advertisement. Qaddosh|contribstalk 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete. Sure, it's verifiable, but I'm not sure exactly what the company is notable for, based on reading the text. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (user advocating "keep" on my talkpage). A user has left this message on my talkpage regarding this deletion discussion. I have no opinion personally on the article or its merits (I merely relisted it for a stronger consensus earlier). The message, linked from my talkpage in it's entirety:
    "on possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar
  • problem is the company is brazilian, and therefore not known by the administrators (understandably)
  • however, some of the sources cited (FOLHA DE SÂO PAULO for example) are VERY known newspapers in Brazil
  • that means that the company DOES have notability
  • I´d suggest just editing maybe some parts like "At the end of 2007 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system", which is kinda pointless
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk McEwen

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

This article fails

WP:BIO guideline, particularly given the dearth of reliable third party sources on display. Erechtheus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP. The link at the bottom provides THE primary source for radio station dj awards. His KMS show is clearly there. The two other links show him on 105.7 and the imdb entry has his work at 98 Rock; IMDB is used often as third party sourcing on wikipedia. It easily passes the notability test; I made sure it did before making the entry. WillC (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just being a radio host and having an IMDb page doesn't make you notable. What has he done that meets
WP:BIO? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I was told the third party IMDB link does not work but it does. The awrds link does list his show (the KMS show) very clearly. The WP:BIO notability says they have to be award-worthy. I added another third party link talking about their ballyhooed switching from 98 Rock to 105.7. Lastly, I don't understand why Kirk is nominated for deletion yet Mark Ondayko, R. Edward Lopez, Josh Spiegel, Mickey and Amelia.....all local personalities Kirk has worked with, have had wiki entries for months yet KIrk does not make it and he has had more exposure and is more verified and notably than the rest of them put together. WillC (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: WillC's comment above: WillC, are you recommending deletion of those articles? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A double standard is being applied. Keep them all or delete them all. I believe all should stay. They pass notability rules. WillC (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the other articles closely, but I agree, this passes notability, but it utterly fails quality. It's so bad that deleting without prejudice now and starting over at some future editor's convenience or rewriting now are better than keeping what's here. Unless you or some other editor steps up to the plate soon, my vote is to delete no the grounds that it's WP:WORSETHANNOTHING. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please suggest what would make it better? WillC (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put a template up on the article talk page. I don't have enough information to complete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devvo & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (3rd nomination) — Scientizzle 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pickup

Christian Pickup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Devvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article lacks any semblance of notability for this person, with the only "references" being links to a website that he contributes to. Fails

WP:BIO. Same can be said for his fictional persona Devvo, so I'm nominating it here as well. Shereth 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart crystals

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

Possible copyright violation -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable, you'd expect hits on google scholar if this was of any note. --neon white talk 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad (and unrecognized) collective noun for certain crystal types. 9Nak (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Keep (non-admin closure) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Got Talent (Series 1)

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

Prod removed without explanation so nominating it for deletion. Pages largely re-cover material available already at Britain's Got Talent. Mallocks (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: There is a similar page at

Britain's Got Talent (Series 2), and as of this message I have now added the afd notice to that page as well, following the relisting of this debate. Mallocks (talk) 21:41, 10 June 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 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➪HiDrNick! 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Meat Records

Shark Meat Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable "digital" record label, with a stable of questionably notable artists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even Kern and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Bea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an apparently

userfy it. --jonny-mt 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Google Street View locations

AfDs for this article:
List of Google Street View locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

With all the new Street View locations Google has released today, it became clear that nearly everywhere in the United States would be covered by Street View in a few months, therefore making this list totally useless. Also,

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak TALK 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

That is why I now support merging
  • Delete This will eventually become "list of every city in the United States". And it looks like Google wants to cover the entire world too. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google has not seen fit to give my area a good satellite map, but they have Street View activated for rural intersections with a single farmhouse otherwise surrounded by cornfields. This is no longer a list with even the slightest encyclopedic purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or rename to List of locations --T-rex 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm satisfied with Google Street View#Evolution and in the long run could even see trimming that list down when Google changes the Street View tag line to "billions and billions served..." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but simplify Merge to Google Street View to preserve archive: Rather than making this an entire directory, limit this list to incorporated cities, county seats, national and state parks, and other locations with some type of importance.Sebwite (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Incorporated cities in Minnesota means that the list will include 22 "cities" around Minneapolis and Saint Paul, of which the suburban population count rivals major midwestern cities. And see
Bay Area. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note:If the decision is to delete, the article should simply be merged into Google Street View so if need be, it can be pulled back out. Besides, this would allow people to view the archive in the event that one wishes to see the evolution. Sebwite (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - It's a ridiculous list with no guidelines by which to limit anything by. The differences of definitions of cities between states makes any task to list locations simply irrelevant to WP. I would rather simply say which States contain SV streets. I do not support merge. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but simplify. List relating to a notable innovation on the Internet which, in turn, has received considerable media coverage both pro and con. I agree it's a little too detailed and should be restricted to major incorporated places. It may be necessary to revisit this, however, if an when Google Streetview becomes ubiquitous and such a list becomes unmanageable. But at the moment that hasn't happened yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please define a "major" incorporated place. For example San Francisco may be the most well known city, but the Bay Area population far exceeds that and no one in Oakland is going to let you tell them they are part of San Francisco SV. If Consensus reaches we simplify then I suggest we use
metropolitan areas or metropolitan statistical areas as the definition of simplicity than any one city or place. .:DavuMaya:. 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I think a good form of simplification would be to have one listing for each region covered by an icon (or not covered by one, since there are many areas now not clearly marked by an icon). For example, in Kentucky, Louisville, which has an icon, would be one area, and Lexington, which has no icon, would be another. But we would not go crazy here listing every little suburb. Still, this list is valuable for now in that it prevents the main GSV article from being unmanageable. Also, when this article is no longer needed, the appropriate action would be to merge or rename it, not to delete it, since it has an archive. Deletion is the course of action to take only when an article is not suitable for Wikipedia to begin with.
Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Sebwite (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This is how the article was when it was first created. Its basically in the same format as it now and you can make the same case to delete it.--Coasttocoast (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was only the first version. From this, the article was worked on to be a more manageable format. There is still plenty of more room for working on it. Sebwite (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's going to be nearly impossible to list every single Street View location. And, above all, it is unencyclopedic.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Additional Comment: I am presently working on trimming down the list. The types of places I am including are:
    • Cities that are labeled in print that is the same size as the main city
    • Cities that are in isolated areas covered in blue
    • National and some state parks
    • Note that not all areas have their own icons now. Though all these places are supposedly associated with a particular icon, it is not always clear which one, so it is best with certain places (such as Bakersfield) to label these as "no icon." Also, some places could like Omaha-Lincoln or Carson City-Reno theoretically could have their own icons, so these places could also be labeled "no icon."
What are we going to do when Google gets most of the United States on Street View? Are we going to rename this List of American locations? That's just plain crazy. If this article is kept, why not start List of hi-res Google Earth locations? --FlagFreak TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Delete this, and include a very small list on Google Street View. If you want to list every single location, feel free to do so on your own website/blog. --FlagFreak TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I can see the "plight" of this "eventually" becoming obsolete because most of the U.S. is covered, I give you this section of the map with Google Map coverage on it: NorthEast U.S. Google Street View. Granted, population wise, with N.Y., Philly, Chicago, Boston, etc. street viewed, that a good portion is covered. If you are looking geographically though, just eye-balling it, I would guesstimate that at most 15% of the map is streetviewed. And there are many major mid-sized (and bigger) cities still not streetviewed. Yes, once every city over 50,000 in the U.S. is streetviewed, this is an obsolete list. At this point though, that list would in my guess be under 20% of those cities in the U.S. would be there. As others have pointed out though, if we don't want "lists" on Wikipedia, then, so be it. Just making a point about some of the arguments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently, streetview only covers the US, but pretty soon as we all hear, it'll be in other places in the world, thereby necessitating more information to be written as to what places have it and what places not. Deleting this article would not make it go away permanently - it would only kill the archive, which would be a tremendous shame. Inevitably, someone would recreate a page like this, either under this name or something else. Anyone who feels it is not needed should at the very least have the consideration to merge it. Sebwite (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Consideration means to give something careful thought. Why should we even include this in an encyclopedia? The most that would be reasonable is a map of the current Street View locations (which I can provide), but listing every single city covered is pretty useless. You could say in the Google logo article that "the letters in Google's logo are coloured in the following order: G, blue; o, red; second o, yellow...etc.", or you just include a picture of the logo so the user could see for herself/himself. --FlagFreak TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just one question, Sebwite: Why do you want to list them in the first place? --FlagFreak TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about making a flat-out list. This is about describing the history and evolution of this service, which has excited many. Contrary to what you may think, I do not support a list of 100% of the locations on Wikipedia, but rather one that is limited to relatively large or otherwise significant or distinct cities or areas. While defining exactly what could fit such a requirement is not easy, it is pretty clear that we would want to list Omaha or Knoxville, which do not have their own icons, but are recognized as big cities with identities separate from other nearby cities. But I do not see much of a need to list places like Newton, MA or Skokie, IL, which are very much like suburbs of the main cities.
At the present, I am leaning toward the best thing to be to merge this article back into GSV. This way, the archive would be preserved. Meanwhile, I am working on converting the list on this page into a simplified chart, which I am planning on doing on my userspace until it is complete.
Meanwhile, it is only a matter of time before SV is introduced in other countries. When this happens, it would probably be a good idea to split the section of the GSV article called "Areas included" into a separate article. That could be titled "Google Street View areas in the United States" or something similar. This section (which I am still working on updating), is not a list, but rather a description of how the service has grown over time. As SV is growing, this is the type of information that will not grow useless, but would tell of the service's development.Sebwite (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with whoever cited WP NOT DIRECTORY. This is exactly the kind of list that policy was intended to target. GSV list is like "List of McDonalds restaurant locations", "List of corporations using Microsoft Vista", "List of cities with skyscrapers." GSV is a service intended for the public, for the nation, and nowhere does Google state it is simply hitting a few specific spots and then calling it quits. The list by virtue will become obsolete and even at this time will not seem very relevant. I interpret you are advocating the list will give us some kind of historical picture of how the service came into being. Let me suggest a
WP:Crystal ball certainty that this list is somehow notable to that effect. Your text may be, the list is not. .:DavuMaya:. 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What I am presently working on in my own userspace is a simple chart that I am planning eventually to add to the main GSV article. It'll not be a directory, but rather give a picture of coverage areas. Meanwhile, I am advocating merging this article. In the future, when locations in other countries are included, so the GSV article does not become USA-centric, it'll become necessary to split that article, so another subarticle will have to be created describing the USA locations (but it'll be different from this one, which should be merged, and will have a different title). The reasons why I advocate merging as opposed to straight-out deleting are that articles do not stop being notable, and it is important to preserve this archive to show editors in the future the proper route to take. Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to preserve the content in your own namespace OR propose an additional namespace off of the main GSV article such as Google Street View/drafts .:DavuMaya:. 01:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Re-charter - I’m doing a second pitch to delete this article as the entire list is original research from primary sources. It seems people notice blue lines and some point deem coverage of an area or city is “sufficient” to merit addition to the GVS list article. The article's references at this moment are a blog entry that part of Canada is visible from a GVS taken in Detroit and a news article about a GVS competitor. The body of the article has zero references/citations. The current process and resulting article/list smacks of
    WP:OR. Rather than deleting the article it could be updated to use http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=68384 as the source and nothing more as that seems to qualify as a reliable secondary source. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have updated
List of Google Street View locations#Summary Table so that it matches Google's reference document on which cities/areas they cover with GVS though reorganized the list by state. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Recharter was my idea, too. I am working on a chart similar to yours on my userspace that is a little more detailed, but for the most part, has a single line for each of the 50 states. It'll only list those places that have icons, isolated areas of blue, or other areas of importance that are separate from the icon. For the most part, I am not using Google to determine what places I feel are worthy of belonging in that chart, but rather the
Road Atlas. When the chart is complete, I am planning on placing in the the Google Street View article under the "areas included" section. But when SV is introduced into other countries, I am planning on moving that section into a new article called "Google Street View in the United States," so the main article is not USA-centric. In the mean time, I am hoping, this discussion will lead to a decision to merge or a non-concensus so the archive can be preserved and we can all decide what to do next. Sebwite (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, so why don't we make an article called Google Earth in the United States? Because it's crazy. Also, we thank you for all the work you've done on this list, and it's a great effort, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you would like, put it on your userspace before it's too late and then we'll decide what to do with it. Okay? ;-) --FlagFreak TALK 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not delete the entire page/article as that would then be used as justification for never being able to recreate this list. I would like to see the body of the article deleted as it seems there's no defined criteria for what gets included and that's what's triggering nearly all of the Delete comments in this AfD discussion. The summary table at the top of the article is based on two defined, and verifiable, criteria for what that table includes. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marc Kupper about not deleting the entire page. I also have the issue about losing the archive, as I have mentioned before. But I do agree that having a list, straight down the page, of hundreds of cities and towns, won't go as it just keeps growing. What this is really all about is that it is time for a change. Google Street View is changing rapidly, hence the need for Wikipedia info on the topic to change constantly to keep up with it.
On the Google Street View page, I have inserted a new chart I made in the past day that has a simple, state-by-state list of cities covered. The list is not based on Google Maps, which is highly detailed and can lead to an overwhelming list, but rather on the USA page of the Rand McNally Road Atlas. In more than 90% of cases, it lists SVed locations that are shown on this map of the RMRA. I made a few exceptions, based on common sense. For example, I added in Modesto and Stockton, which are really cities of their own, and left out three places near Chicago shown that map that are more like suburbs.
I am also planning as my next step to reinstate a state-by-state set of paragraphs on the areas included into the GSV article that the nom here has removed twice in the past few days. I plan to leave a discussion of the GSV talk page about it. While I will put it back there for now, a solution may be to place it on a separate page. I have not created a page on "GSV in the USA" for now because it seems silly when the United States is still the only country, but this may be a step in that direction. Sebwite (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cash Money Records. Per GFDL, I am not deleting any history. Also not merging content. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cash Money Records artists

List of Cash Money Records artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Unsourced list of non-notable artists "currently and/or formerly signed to " a non-notable recording label. Damiens.rf 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pointless listcruft, merge any bluelinks into label's own page. If the artists aren't notable (...enough to have WP pages of their own), they shouldn't be listed in a page such as this (doesn't aid readers or help WP organization). If there are only a handful (as it seems) that are notable, it's overkill to have a separate page just to list them. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think that it is
    WP:USELESS. Who are we to decide what is valuable content or not, and that should not be the reasoning for a deletion, Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, I think that it is useless because it is WP:Listcruft and that I specifically was talking to its existence as a stand-alone article (note where say to merge content) because it makes WP navigation difficult. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' into article Cash Money Records, and redirect link. The article has a list of artists in it already. There's really no need to split it out, unless there were 100s of notable artists, past & present. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list was sourced, I could see merging it. But it isn't sourced at all, and nobody should merge unsourced content. I recommend redirecting without merging or deleting, but could understand deleting.
    GRBerry 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-mt 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable library, with no sources whatsoever, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, only one external link, only two edits since 2006, excluding this AfD, no substantive edits in a while, no room for growith, original research issues, only things that are at all interesting are that its old, founded in 1899 and that it happens to have TV stations (cable access) within the compound, although those claims are not backed up with any verifiable reliable sources. I say delete it. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where do you get the "2RSs=N" notion from? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are two books on the library - both published by the library (written by staff ? - can't tell). All other mentions I can find are incidental or directory listings. Simply seems to be insufficient written by independant
    reliable sources to write a neutral point of view article. Needs someone local with access to printed records to see if the other sources that Google books reports are more than peripheral mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Has secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace A. Dow

Grace A. Dow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, although there are referenced sources, her accomplishments including giving a marble stone to a church and land for a hospital and bing the president and member of various charities is not notable, especially since none of those charities have articles of their own. Perhaps being a board member at the state level of daughters of the American revolution is her most notable achievement, but it doesn't pass the muster of the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. so delete it. and add a sentence or two at her husbands article. Myheartinchile (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with her husband's article. Pburka (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
based on what policy?Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment subject has a library, foundation and college named after her as well as being married and mother to
    merged somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
She doesn't really have a library named after her, she has a library which she paid for named after her, it was basically hers, it wasn't a honor bestowed upon her for the purposes of finding someone of note to name it after. She has a college named after her? What? Which one? I think i missed that part, whats your source on that? Lot's of people have foundations named after them, it has to be a notable foundation for it to matter. Her children are notable? Who are they and why? I wholeheartedly agree with a merge to her husband's article.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of the article tells me her son was architect Alden B. Dow, the college I mentioned is this. Guest9999 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains plenty of sources. It is the existence of such sources which is the basis of the notability guidelines, not their content. Unless any evidence is presented that these sources don't exist or don't provide significant coverage we should assume good faith on the part of the article's author and keep this. The idea of merging this with her husband's article sounds like it comes from the era when married women weren't allowed to open bank accounts without their husbands' permission.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
sources yes, reliable sources establishing notability NO, she is only verifiable, no news articles, just the library stuff. She does not have multiple no trivial coverage in several publications, and that makes her fail
WP:BIOMyheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth

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

This has been nominated for deletion in the past with mixed results, the last time being about two years ago. I can't help but notice how all the material to support this article is based on primary sources and it is my belief that this fails

(jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bea

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

Singer/songwriter/actor. Sole IMDB credit is for single episode of Law & Order:SVU. Speedily deleted previously as both

COI (record company is "Shark Meat Records", article author is User:Sharkmeatrecords). Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE fails
WP:RS but, merge to the record company label.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. A merge may not be possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the admin declining speedy. Non-notable artist, I would need to be shown this subject meets
    Tan | 39 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3, probably coulda picked A1 too. No prejudice against potential future recreation. Shereth 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student lounge

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

Delete contested prod;

WP:DICDEF and the definition in the article equally applies to 1000s of locales: cafes, restaurants, bowling alleys, sidewalks, and shopping malls all serve the same purpose... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STQ-3 (band)

STQ-3 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability and since I can't find their album anywhere on major online music stores, I'm assuming it's self-produced. I suppose it could be speedied but I'm just giving the creator a chance to find non-trivial coverage. Also nominating the related Programming Mechanical Judgments: The STQ-3 Movie (short movie) which is equally (if not more) obscure. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Pilotguy contact tower 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts

Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources on the site! it should be deletedOlliyeah (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written in Feb 2007. There are no sources. I looked and could not find any. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article referencing improved during AfD, but still of borderline notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dafoh

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

Non-notable organization. Speedy was declined, however, this article contains large amounts of

WP:OR and is unsourced. TN‑X-Man 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - No problem. I've corrected a couple of the internal links and fixed the external links so they display the URL instead of a number. TN‑X-Man 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bad article, but this isn't "clean up," it's deletion. They're notable, even China can't ignore them. --Blechnic (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, along with the band's main page. Nakon 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Every Dolla

Reach Every Dolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreleased, album. Fails

WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - Unfortunately there is no speedy category for albums, otherwise I would have so nominated it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:CRYSTAL as unreleased album, unsourced. TN‑X-Man 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


F.2.D. Myspace

They have some tracks on limewire, but none on myspace. I understand ya think they a hoax, but they are unsigned and still gonna go major. They are also working with "The Mixtape Massacre". The website isn't started, but they are on unoffical mixtapes. HA NOT A HOAX! NICE TRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MixtapeMassacre (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • MySpace is not a reliable source. 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure.

talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process

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

This information would be better suited in prose in the

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 page, rather than its own. So therefore, I suggest a merge. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, but still suggest a rewrite into prose. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a large list of information which would make the main article too unwieldy. Plus, let me cite precedent.
John Kerry presidential campaign VP selection process.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - There is a precedent for this, but I think this article needs to be closely monitored. For example, there are several people on this list without references to support their consideration as a nominee. Speculation needs to be kept to a minimum for this to be legit. TN‑X-Man 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki any eligible images, delete the list. Since this gallery is, to put it simply, huge, I'm going to take the unusual step of

userfying it to my own userspace at User:jonny-mt/Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps. This should serve the dual purpose of weeding out any non-free images (thanks to the helpful bots who delink any non-free images outside of the main article namespace) and allowing time to confirm whether or not any of these images are not on Commons. I'm fine with working on this myself, but any help would naturally be most appreciated. --jonny-mt 06:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps

Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. If anyone wants to transwiki this to Commons, they can do so in the five days of this AfD.  Sandstein  20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonnotable unpublished fanbook. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mark tom and travis story

The mark tom and travis story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unpublished book. Fails both

WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gamble

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

Non-notable software developer/blogger. There is a lack of reliable sources to support the assertions made in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a disputed PROD. Some reasoning is supllied on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably could have been speedied as a non-notable website founder. As it stands, article is unsourced, fansite material. TN‑X-Man 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability requirements are not met, also concur with Tnxman's view.--VS talk 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree... sources were added. As this is a blogger no academic sources have been quoted; instead other independent sites have been quoted, all of which give the blogger and his efforts decent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondelion (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were the subject's own website mentioned in the article. None of the sources added are either independent of the subject or have any sort of fact checking, both of which are required per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Try again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

93 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Antonio Peña

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

A wrestling promoter of dubious notability. The one cited source does not give the impression of being particularly reliable or providing substantial coverage, and Google provides results about unrelated people.  Sandstein  19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that
    WP:ATHLETE presumes that competitors in a professional league are notable, not their promoters, even if whatever it is he promotes is indeed a fully professional league.  Sandstein  05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Tom Hobbes

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

Unreferenced bio. I can't seem to verify any of this through searches of external resources. Supporting details like "Desmond Ngubani" and "African People's Church of the Progeny of Noah" also appear not to be found anywhere on the web but in Wikipedia articles. Possible hoax? (See author's deleted contributions here for recent problematic edits.) The Anome (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fortune (magazine). History will remain intact, not merging content. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Admired Companies

AfDs for this article:
America's Most Admired Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete - does not appear to pass notability guidelines as it does not appear to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Seems to be a vanity thing for companies so most of the Ghits are press releases; other sources mention it in passing. The lists themselves may need to be removed regardless as copyvios.

talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • In the absence of reliable sources that this particular list/publication is independently notable, the notability of Fortune doesn't pass to this article. There is a section on the lists that Fortune publishes at
    talk) 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Theory of criticality

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

A very extensive philosophical essay inherently unencyclopedic. Completely original research. Prod removed by author. BradV 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wheeler

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

Non-notable biography. David is an editor in good standing and has been with the project for years; in addition, he's contributed some essays and tools which Wikipedians are prone to come into contact with. As a user page the content is fine. As an article, however, it's demonstrative of WP's systemic biases towards free software and Wikipedia personalities, as were these not factors the notable sources (primarily an essay well known in the Linux community seven years ago) would not be enough to warrant a biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the odd thing is that he would seem to pass
    WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Striking the latter comment as I didn't look at his homepage and it may be there is enough there to establish notability per DGG. I just don't have time to check ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Seems there's a lot more to be said than is in the article, see the home page http://www.dwheeler.com/dwheeler.html for additional books an, publications, and references to news stories about him. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG; Good point, Gatoclass. Our definition of academic may be too restrictive, or susceptible of overrestrictive interpretation. People like James Lovelock or Julian Barbour are respected in the academic world just as if they were professors somewhere, but don't happen to have academic jobs, experts in many industries might qualify if their work appears in academic journals. Reaching back into the 19th century gives multitudes of famous examples - Darwin of course. The Grassmanns and Karl Weierstrass were high-school, gymnasium teachers, as was this century's Kurt Heegner. Perhaps it should say academic/professor/scholar/expert, or say that if someone satisfies any of the six criteria we give they are considered academics.John Z (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to err in responding to a percieved bias toward Free Software and Wikipedians with a bias against them. Wheeler's work is notable although this article doesn't cover it well. Rather than delete, I think a rewrite is appropriate. Bruce Perens (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is "might be notable" a reason to have an article now? Forgive my cynicism, but while I feel like he might be notable, I'm not seeing any independent sources that say so...but I can be convinced. Any assertions of notability - step to the front please.  Frank  |  talk  02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third party reliable sources provide significant coverage. Extra sources from subjects webpage cited by DGG seem to be using him as an expert, not about him. gnfnrf (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly based on his publication of two books and the fact that his essay on the economics of open-source software has been cited in 84 scholarly publications. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Gone, no release, no assertion of notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.2.D.

F.2.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased band. A lot of crystal-balling. First single schedulled for 2009. Stay tunned. Damiens.rf 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Unremarkable band, so tagged ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the gravity is born

Where the gravity is born (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, barely comprehensible fringe physics. Note that most of the "content" cites only a book by multiply-banned sockpuppeteer W. Guglinski. Bm gub (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Barry

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

This person is not significant, the references are not reliable, and the content belongs in

Fox News Channel controversies if anywhere. Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources added in this edit are a start, but not yet enough to sustain an article. I suggest adding him to the Factor article, and a new article on Barry can be created if enough information on him is discovered. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, the Wikipedia "biography" on Porter Barry would seem to qualify as "a calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit." The keep position seems to be "Let's use the media Wikipedia to get revenge on this guy Barry by listing 'evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans'." Great. Wikipedia's POV material on O'Reilly is in the
    Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article, so the material may fit there, if anywhere. -- Bebestbe (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yout last edit added the following statement: "Barry is known for his confrontational interviews." Is he? Is there a single third party reference to Barry being known for confrontational interviews? Is he "known" for anything? Bytebear (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have changed the wording as suggested.
talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not the wording. It's the lack of a third party reference. You have to find someone reliable who has said that Barry is known as an interviewer, controversial or not. Has anyone written anything about this man specifically at all? Bytebear (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let it be on record. The article has references including FOX news website, MSNBC website and youtube video which are sufficient enough (in my opinion) to prove that he works with Bill O Reilly, he has interviewed Bill Moyers, Nancy Cantor and George Tiller. These are the references
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY -Youtube video of the interview with Bill Moyers,
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1126562.aspx -MSNBC,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355898,00.html -Porter Barry interviews chancellor of Syracuse University,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281861,00.html -Porter Barry interviews abortion doctor. Also for the record, three of the references were added by someone else.
If you guys think this is not sufficient for a wikipedia article, pls go ahead and delete it. I am out of here.
talk) 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There is still not enough info for a stand-alone bio. As Gamaliel pointed out, this can go in the O'Reilly Factor article and if enough material can be produced a bio could be spun out. Also, while not policy or even a guideline at the moment, wikipedia shouldn't create
original research. In other words, this individual shouldn't have a bio until one has already been published. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (Widget toolkit)

Shoes (Widget toolkit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software - fails

WP:N, also no RS ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

Give Me That

Keep, AfD withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.)

Give Me That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per

talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

GtstrickyTalk or C 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is notable for being Webbies first single.--Yankees10 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being the Webbies first single does not make it notable. Charting does. I'll update the article. Thanks, Gtstricky. -
    talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A few people did suggest a redirect but I'm unsure if such an awkward title would be a viable search term. If anyone thinks this would be useful, they are welcome to create a redirect. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification

Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This article should be deleted on the grounds that is it wholly inappropriate. The creator of this article stated that: There is confusion in Ireland over whether this will be good for the country or otherwise, and an excess of information from many extreme points of view is adding to this. This article has been created in order to invite an impartial combination of sources into a brief summary to help the general public. This is the job of the

talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Agreed, it's also almost exclusively edited by anons who have made almost no other contributions, not grounds for deletion but a little bit suspicious, I wonder would wikiscanner reveal anything?!
talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I see, yeah delete then. PiTalk - Contribs 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I had a look at the article earlier in the week to see if it was salvagable, with a view to turning it into an article entitled Positions regarding the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, or entries on Wikiquote. Unfortunately on closer examination, the vast majority of the pro citations were from http://www.labour.ie/lisbonreformtreaty/whyyes/, and the vast majority of the con citations were from http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/topic/5: the piece was effectively a Labour vs. Sinn Féin polemic. The work involved in obtaining quotations from other sources, pro, con and neutral, was beyond me in the time available: the piece was a bit of an
    Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification: delete it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep I think that given that the vote failed, an article is entirely appropriate. It needs to be re-written to be neutral, but it's entirely encyclopedic and notable.

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008. GreenJoe 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It happens that the issue of for and against arguments is quite important, particularly to those wishing to resurrect the treaty of Lisbon, which is now a big issue for the EU. wp:soapbox specifically states that a balanced description of a contentious issue is appropriate. I would go so far as to say it was very important that the article on the proposed irish constitutional amendment should include a properly sourced explanation of what were considered the important issues. Anything usefull here should be carried across. Sandpiper (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you doing just that, User:Sandpiper? Admittedly, it would be hard work plowing thru the thousands of news articles written on the subject and containing quotes from everyone from the former UN Secretary General[13] to the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association [14]. But it's doable and if you think it's worth doing, go do it.
As pointed out above ad nauseam, the article is unsalvageable in its present state - it would be quicker to write a new one and wikinormative (I invented a word!) to place the additions in
European Parliament election, 2009
for a start).
I have therefore taken the precaution of copying
Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification into my sandbox
. Should it become necessary to source info, it may aid as a quick look up.
(Note to self: RTÉ news timelined its news entries, starting from http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0401/eulisbon.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0613/eulisbon.html, also see http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisbontreaty/). You may now delete
Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification safely. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World civil war (concept)

World civil war (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not confirmed for this article

talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep this isn't going to get deleted. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitanoda Station

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

Completing unfinished nom for 70.56.168.6 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant independent coverage. The author contested the prod saying that other train stations exist. I do not see the notability of this one. There is the presence of an interwiki link but again no references are provided failing the primary criterion of notability.

single purpose account: 70.56.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply
]

  • Says who? Inherent notability has not been established as consensus. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out with a grapefruit spoon than read through these innumerable town/railroad station/city street pothole articles, but
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd. In fact, I happily tolerate the existence of articles like these because they are informative, useful, and yes-- encyclopedic. And even if we step out of the real world and use Wiki-think: it seems there is a policy or guideline that says towns and railroad stations and the like are inherently notable. Now, if we could only get the Wiki-community to admit that film-acting, for instance, is an inherently "notable" profession, a huge amount of conflict, ill-will and wasted time could be avoided at the project. But we'll see Grand Central Station at AfD before that happens... Dekkappai (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You state: "
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd.". That's a pretty explicit reference to this afd and me. If you still doubt why I suggest deleting it please read my nomination statement. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's verifiable but there is no significant coverage of the train station. The article is just a directory style listing. I fail to see how this is notable. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not really relevant as regards this discussion unless the suspected sock puppet has commented at this AfD discussion. If there is a issue with a suspected sock puppet it should be taken to WP:Suspected sock puppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wasted time AfD, because, yes, train stations, major ones on major lines, even without significant coverage (although I don't read Japanese) have long been established as notable by the Wikipedia community. There's no policy, but this is what has been going on, train stations belong. There are not many things you can buy maps and postcards of in almost every nationality of tourist city, but railroad stations are one thing. They have an assumed notability among human beings of all cultural backgrounds. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of getting this deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway stations are the kind of topics which paper encyclopedias traditionally cover, for example my paper encyclopedia has entries on
    Hallingskeid which are smaller and less significant than this one. The current article is poor, but it does have some information about its location relative to other stations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that Mitch Malloy is notable; the article is not a copyright violation, but rather was copied by several websites which mirror Wikipedia content. John254 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Malloy

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

Non notable, was not an official recognized member of the band according to the official band or label website, never participated in an official recording, the article is poorly sourced; one source listed is an online fan site interview with the person in question Eatabullet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ref added. He was in the band. (linked to WP page) He also had some top 20 hits on his own [17]. The article seems to be a copy viol right now but it can be saved if someone will spend some time on it. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I got a good ref in there now. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to answers.com because the only mention of him is in their copy of our Van Halen article. DCEdwards1966 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I keep getting
Rick Rolled. Every article on the Van Halen relationship is a WP mirror. Anyway... I can not find any sources that backup the Van Halen claim. He is notable on his own but the article should be rewritten with info on him and his career and the Van Halen info deleted. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters. Spinouts still need to assert notability, as per

the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. "Let's compromise" can't work because there's no such thing as half-way notability. Either this is notable or it isn't. Searches reveal that it's not. If someone believes otherwise, they should produce that evidence. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fixed :) If the toys are an assertion of notability, then it would be better to bulk up the main article than stretch it into this one as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Transwiki, Nakon 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Valkyrie Profile characters

List of Valkyrie Profile characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot and character sections of the Valkyrie Profile video games. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion is that the sources that exist are reliable and demonstrate the notability of the article subject. Darkspots (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Hoogewerf

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

Procedural listing for user:EBY3221, who was having trouble listing the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*delete Has this just been recreated? This is listed right next to a closed AFD for the same article, where the result was Speedy Delete. If it has been recreated, then salting might be appropriate.

talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. I find it very difficult to understand EBY3221's reasoning. Why should the fact that the sources linked above were published in 2003, or that they were "uncited", invalidate them? Their existence shows that this a notable subject whenever they were published and whether or not they have been cited in the article.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I was unclear. My reasoning wasn't that the previous speedy deletion invalidated the cites, or that they weren't named before. Sorry. What I meant to say was this - I found the same 3 cites on the subject as StephenBuxton. 2 are 5 years old, not from mainstream English sources, and are primarily concerned with discussing the firing of the subject from his previous position at Forbes. The other is not an article but a stub about a publication in which the subject was listed as the Editor. This isn't a lot, when compiling the notability of person. Which is why I voted the way I did. EBY3221 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St andrews economic forum

St andrews economic forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable conference. No independent sources cited. Only one such conference held so far (last month). No assertion of notability shown. User name of original author indicates possible conflict of interest. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Alison. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Pargeter

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

This actress' only claims to fame are parts as extras, four episodes of a radio soap (as an infant) and an alleged part in The Subtle Knife - a part whose name doesn't even turn up in the plot summary. No IMDB entry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Hallinan played Laura Timmins. On the other hand IMDB doesn't list a Lucy Timmins in the cast. I'm guessing it was a non-speaking, uncredited role (i.e. an extra). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball time? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call for speedy conclusion of this AfD. I realise that Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is not official policy, but it is increasingly evident that the user who created the page in question was either the subject, closely related to the subject, or an agent of the subject. And either created it as vanity, promotion or for similar reasons. The creating editor has since (possibly panicking) blanked the page repeatedly. Normal practice would be to reinstate the page. But, for reasons of "child privacy", (and all the reasons noted above) I think this debate should simply be closed ASAP. And the article deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just speedy-deleted this per
    WP:CSD#A7, as well as there being issues around the privacy of the subject, who happens to be a minor. The associated image has also been removed as it was unlicensed/privacy concerns - Alison ❤ 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Prod notice was removed in bad faith by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Film Awards

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

Contested PROD. Film awards for which I could find very little via a google search when I looked, no references provided other than imdb and notability is not asserted. roleplayer 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tout monitor

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

Original author using this article to promote his service/industry, even though he did remove the direct link to his website. No independent sources to establish notability, not able to verify. Exists primarily to promote. Speedied once and re-created; another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag on the second try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do any of you people know anything about the sports betting industry or this terminology? It's fairly well known, just hasn't been documented in a online encyclopedia to reference. It's a legitimate category and can reference numerous sites that are considered Tout Monitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm sure you'd be happy to educate us, if only we'd go to your web site. (He's the original author, folks.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't care if you go to my site or not. It's simply a reference for this category terminology. I thought this was a place for information? So what is wrong with what I wrote? Rather then just telling me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because you used it for promotional purposes, which is specifically
    independent, reliable sources, this might not have happened. Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by those who seek to use it as a venue to promote themselves or their services, and numerous editors and administrators spend an extraordinary amount of time in an effort to keep that stuff out and keep Wikipedia true to its mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I already removed the external link to my site and added other references. The purpose of the article was to simply add to the gambling terminology section. Share the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment let's lay off Bigguyceo for being the author folks he seems to be trying to improve the article. The problem seems to be more with reliable 3rd party referencing. He obviously isn't trying to sell his services when he removed the link quite willingly. I still think it isn't notable enough for its own article but, it may be appropriate to mention it in a different article on sports betting/gambling. It may also help if Bigguyceo can contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner for those that don't automatically assume good faith to have something to help them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillay Productions

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

The only assertion of notability seems to be removal of two videos from YouTube. 9Nak (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1600

AfDs for this article:
Nokia 1600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide and Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Strong Delete This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an encyclopedia not a product guide.
    L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, maintaining the page history in the event they become notable and an article is warranted. Interstate 15 seems a more logical primary target than Soulja Girl, but I will add a hatnote to the article. Shereth 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I15

I15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper once played with Soulja. Damiens.rf 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Mile, London

Museum Mile, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been in existence since Dec 2006, without any statement of notability, or expansion. The term appears to have been applied only by the London Borough of Camden, and in fact appears to conflict with other uses to apply the term to museums around South Kensington. If this article were to be retained, I should like to see some evidence that it's used beyond LBC. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — promotional or not, this page provides a worthwhile list of important museums in this area of central London. The term is used by "Visit London", the official London tourist board website, and is thus used by others as well as the London Borough of Camden. I have added a reference. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That link is to the opening page of 'Visit London' and doesn't appear to contain any reference to 'Museum Mile'. I can't find it on 'attractions/culture/' either - and a site search returns no results.
Museums in London are all listed in {{
London museums and galleries}}. While the contents are notable, this article just seems an arbitrary list - and includes the Theatre Museum which closed and transferred its collection to the V&A. Kbthompson (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment — Try here. I think you clicked the wrong link! Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Kbthompson (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the
Huntarian Museum is in Glasgow - its the other brother that founded this collection, and there's no specific article. The Brunei Gallery is a redirect to a University college. Last time I was there, the Royal Opera House didn't have a gallery, or exhibition - although the building has intrinsic interest. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It might be worth mentioning as a footnote to List of museums in London that these are sometimes referred to as Museum Mile - but the same term is applied to Albertopolis - and that both uses seem to be derived from its use in New York. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If this term has been used by the official London tourist board website and have some other references on wikipedia, there is no reason that it can not exist as an article here simply because there is no “signage” at the streets. I don’t think we should so much strictly judge this term by comparing it to the one used in the context of New York using the same standard and conclude its value by its less significance than the one in NY. To delete it by those kinds of reasons is arbitrary. For many foreigners who may not be familiar with London, the long list of List of museums in London are not as meaningful as the list in this article. It is at least a valuable source of knowledge to museum goers like me from Asia. Also, another term Albertopolis is too difficult to understand since it is unable to find the meaning from a dictionary. The term of “Museum Mile” is much friendlier to non native speakers. AlisonLiu (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as vandalism. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8-Legged Monsters

8-Legged Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe that this is a real film. It is not listed at IMDB either as a title or on the list of movies produced by the claimed production company Bad Robot.[26] Google does not turn up any hits on the title. Is this maybe just confusion based on the real movie Eight Legged Freaks? Deli nk (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial Infotainment

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

Advertisement disguised as an article about a non-notable defunct local radio show Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable local radio show with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And, for the record, I had already deleted the link to Cafepress that the author has so throughfully included for people who might want to make a purchase. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GizzaDiscuss © 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narayanalayam

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

Non notable organization. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GizzaDiscuss © 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanmayananda Saraswathi

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

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Heinz Blomann

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

Contested PROD. Article is unreferenced advert created by single-use account

WP:COI. Delete Thetrick (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triat (World of Darkness)

Triat (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are gravely misreading my point. It is not that it is notable because it's part of WoD, it's notable because it's one of the most significant plot elements underlying both Mage and Werewolf. Most of the cultures in the three biggest games have a three-way oppositional structure that relates directly to the Triat; I'm not overly familiar with Werewolf apart from the basics, but Pentex embodies the Wyrm while the Garou embody the Wild. In Mage, the Traditions represent the Wild, the Technocracy represents the Weaver, and the Nephandi represent the Wyrm. One could argue that a similar pattern exists in Vampire, though it's a little unclear as to whether the Sabbat or the Antediluvians represent the Wyrm, as the Vampire mythos predates the fully-developed Triat; however, the three-way oppositional structure still obtains. Haikupoet (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't invalidate my point. If it's notable (in th Wikipedia sense of the word) there should be other sources to back this up. In the current state of the article, there are no such sources and I was unable to locate any in my online searches. If it's "one of the unifying plot points" and is notable because of this (again in the WP sense of the word), there should be something other than your assurance (i.e. references that are independent of White Wolf) that can tell me this. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no specific requirement for the amount of context, as long as there is enough to show that it is a game character, and not a deity or whatever in some actual real world mythology. If the game is very notable, all major plot elements are notable also. We have a policy for giving full coverage of appropriate material when we cover something. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability. Neither really any need to merge, as nothing in the article is significant --T-rex 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt

Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A one-shot marketing promotion, with no evidence of lasting notability

talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment -- re: the RFD, this wasn't a one-shot contest. It was repeated three times over an extended period. Jkatzen (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Neutral; if Jkatzen can add some references to document the event and its historical notability, then I have no problem with Keeping. The first, or an early, promotion of this kind is certainly a good claim to notability, and coverage of the event would cement that, I think. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It may get a passing mention now and again but the criteria for notability is that multiple sources should address the subject in detail. --neon white talk 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if it can be better sourced Broonsparrow (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no substantial coverage; just another promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling in schools

Recycling in schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an original essay, not an encyclopedia article.

talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (NYC)

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

Article falls into

talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Darn, I wanted to go outside and sit a while, then write a Wikipedia page about myself. You're telling me that wouldn't be notable? :-( Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasuo Fukud

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep for the time being, due to the confusion over the non-english sources. Rather than simply relist I will close the discussion to give the editors time to dig up sources rather than just evidence of their existence - bear in mind that Google hits are not acceptable indicators of notability. If nobody can (or will) actually source this article it should be renominated in a relatively short period of time. Shereth 03:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Runner

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

Obscure, non-notable video game. Next to nothing for Google hits [31], no reliable sources. Fails

 RGTraynor  11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep- I am the creator of this page. While this game may not be notable, neither are pages on many of the games listed on here. We don't try to delete those either. mattiator (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, yes, oftentimes we do when we find that the articles lack reliable sources and the subjects lack notability.
     RGTraynor  21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. If we go by Google Japan, then only 1680 hits are yielded for "ソリッドランナー" (the title of the game). Of these, the majority (I dare say 1650+) are from blog, fan-, or commercial (shops) sites that easily fail
    WP:RS. Of the remaining potential sites, they are little more than profile pages. I failed to find sites that have information on development or reception. Unless reliable print sources are brought up, I fear looking for online sources is a dead end to keep this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per

WP:IAR - hoaxes aren't speedyable but blatant rubbish is. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Zadù

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

Fake, the depicted person ist Heribert Weber. Matthiasb (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearhealth

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "notability". Article about a piece of open source software in use in health organisations. Article does still read a bit like an advert. roleplayer 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. After reading the notability guidelines it seems that certainly "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." that threshold is established. A google search shows substantive coverage from ZDNet, OsNews, Slashdot, and many more as well as consistent coverage in the Open Source Healthcare site of record site LinuxMedNews.com . Furthermore many resources covering the topic in the medical field are not available online such as the leading magazine publications and things like VistA Healthcare News which this month features ClearHealth.

Secondly "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources", it seems like any reasonable effort conducted reveal the results mentioned above which are clearly substantive and independent and meet the basic notability guideline. This article was also in response to an article request.

Finally the guideline of "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established" it seems that even if you feel notability is not now established there is a strong probability it can be.

How is this article not notable in the context of this one [32] ? Both are the largest open source systems for powering healthcare settings, VistA is for in-patient, ClearHealth is for outpatient. ClearHealth ranks higher on sourceforge and freshmeat than the VistA system? It powers the largest open source healthcare outpatient system in the country, Primary Care Coalition, as referenced in the article and in this months VistA Healthcare News. How can something be an advertisement for an open source project which is free in dollar terms and free under the GPL software license?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added additional numbers with citations from the California Healthcare Foundation and VistA & Open Healthcare News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a lot of work to assert notability, but it's there. A rewrite, including some numbers, can make it wothy keeping. 9Nak (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am just a novice to wikipedia but I am a physician and a hobbyist in open source. My opinion is that a clearhealth article is notable based on the awareness of it in the medical community, it has been reviewed and discussed by NIH, NLM and CDC and from my understanding is likely to be certified by CMS for funding assistance which is a very short list. Having the entry is consistent with other entries already in wikipedia. I do agree that the article could use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.r.hathaway (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect, for now to

Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Silver Springs Public School

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

relatively unknown elementary school in Toronto. The article is just one sentence long. Yettipolitician123 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webbook

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the references provided verify that the term is used, not what it means exactly, a neologism that is for wikitionary not wikipedia. Move it across? SGGH speak! 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz Tech

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

Non-notable, no independent sources, no relevant Google or Google News hits except their own website. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2008

Miss Intercontinental 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Few non-wiki and non-pageant fan site ghits. Almost no third party news sources can be found on Google.

talk • contribs 08:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Famous Beauties 2007

Miss World Famous Beauties 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"... is a fictif annual beauty contest". I think that says it all. No ghits whatsoever outside Wikipedia. Contested prod.

talk • contribs 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Universe

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

I was about to try to clean up this page, but I am not sure that this article satisfies

WP:N. Therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There is some important history on this page, but maybe that's not a good reason to keep the page on Wikipedia. I have copied the article to an offline file in case the show re-emerges and stirs more controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.208 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entries on this page, are all from the podcast creators mouth and/or web site. Everything is factual and no external sources were necessary. All information gathered on this specific podcast is all factual not opinion based and should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.113.146 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why anyone feels this entry should be so heavily linked/sourced. The information presented is all factual, and it seems like this information should be preserved as a record of both MU's popularity and also of the major problems that ended in MU's downfall. If it IS deleted and Mr. Grundy begins another business venture that could have similar problems, people should know about this situation. I'm voting against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.108.11 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the information in this post is very factual and not at all opinion-based. Nobody is disputing the facts as presented. Why delete it? People who are interested in knowing what Mysterious Universe was have nowhere else to find factual information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy is to go back into the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.214.55 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this post is correct. It should not be deleted. People who may be interested in what Mysterious Universe was need the information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy returns to the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdemon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

This article should absolutely NOT be deleted. There are NO factual errors. The fact that it is based on internet sources does not invalidate the events. Is the person who marked it for deletion suggesting that no wikis can be made relating to internet events? The article should stand both for the historical record and as a reference for potential future customers who may be considering subscribing (if Mr Grundy decides to revive the show or go into business again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SensibleSam (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. There are no errors. WesTer

  • Comment This article is being considered for deletion because of
    notability concerns. There are no reliable source on the article so therefore it's accuracy cannot be assertained. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. Also i believe the above 4 comments to be the same editor, who may be involved with the article. --SineBot (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I believe that the above comments ARE from 4 users, or more. The above commenter has no basis for such a statement, and should perhaps offer proof before making such assumptions. The consensus currently seems to indicate that this article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.148.15 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC) —

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

There currently is no consensus are no valid reasons for keeping this article have been put forward. --neon white talk 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the four people that posted a RipOff Report. On the EERIE Forums, we have discovered that three of the reporters were forum members. That right there verifies that the Ripoff Reports were made by four separate people. Deleting this Wiki would be irresponsible and uneccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.185.255 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

This posting is factually correct and relevant and should not be deleted. There are simply not enough sources available for this information, but that doesn't mean it is not valuable information to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.90.101 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the entry above this one - I think you are confusing a comment on the page above that is alleging four comments on this page came from the same source with a reference elsewhere to four "RipOff Reports" being filed against Mysterious Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.241.82 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

None of the sources are reliable and many are primary and self published by the creators themselves which cannot be used to establish notability (see comment by nominator). There is very little to suggest notability. Remember popularity is not the same as notability, being on a top 50 list does not guarantee notability. There is little evidence of this getting any coverage in second party reliable sources. --neon white talk 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to fight this, and frankly don't care. Truthdemon is the only login I use for wikipedia. I sign in from work and home, thus the different IP addresses, I guess. I have never signed in under a different username. I may have forgotten to sign in, and edited the wiki without signing in, but I can't be certain. Franky, accusing me of sockpuppetry, or whatever, seems a lame excuse for disregarding my comments. I only created the account to keep the Mysterious Universe Wiki A)updated and B) fairly evenhanded, since someone, initially Thekloofy and now DestroHolmes seemed to want to whitewash (and now delete) the entry. I found and edited the MU Wiki because I wanted it to reflect the truth of what was going on with MU. If you want to deceive inveigle and obfuscate, go right ahead. If you wonder who I am, I am Gatorbobo; I was Gatorbobo at Mysterious Universe (before the Forums were deleted) and I use the same username in other forums as well. I'm easy to find, if you want to verify my existence.Truthdemon (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Gatorbobo[reply]

Accusations of sock puppetry should not be taken personally. This afd contains many very similar posts by multiple accounts that have little edits other than this afd. This is naturally suspicious. If you have not violated policy on sock puppetry or meat puppetry then ignore it. The problem with your editing seems to be that you are adding
verifiable which often happens with those who have a conflict of interest. --neon white talk 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Canvassing other individuals to post is considered to be
meat puppetry which is dealt with under the same rules as sock puppetry. From Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets "Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. --neon white talk 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Which sources? --neon white talk 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per

Tanthalas39 at 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

FUNLIB

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

Article was originally proposed for deletion as it did not cite any sources per

WP:V, and that searching didn't reveal any sources. Since then, the article has been blanked then stubified by the author but no sources have bee added. It's been about a month since the prod, so I'm bringing it here. Gazimoff WriteRead 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn - Article has since been speedily deleted under criterion G7. Gazimoff WriteRead 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chili cheese burrito

Chili cheese burrito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an action to get Chili Cheese Burritos back to

Face 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

If you do a Google search, you'll find quite some forum/blog posts about it, and as Stephen showed, an RS even mentioned it. The article might be rubbish yes, but it's not OR. Cheers,
Face 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong delete fails just about everything,
    CB ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Sonic weaponry in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think it does. I interpret the guideline as saying that things can be notable even if they are not popular. But in any event, widely used by notable artists is saying a good deal more than "popular." DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails to meet the
    general notability guideline of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If someone turns up some kind of "sonic weaponry monthly" magazine, I'll change my vote. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Trivial list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created contrary to WP:TRIVIA. Does not cite sources that speak to the subject (or any that don't, almost).
    talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7; User Request. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace (song)

Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

I created this page last year for what turned out to be a non-notable song. It's currently redirected to the album of the same name, but I don't see anybody searching for this as currently titled, and so I think it would be better to remove the redirect page entirely. Spell4yr (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I suppose this would also qualify as a G7. I didn't realize that almost all of the content was written by me originally. Spell4yr (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as {{db-author}} - so tagged.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. References added since nomination show some notability. Dweller (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


William Seaward

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

Abysmally fails

WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment NN is wikipedia shorthand for 'Not-notable' see Wikipedia:Notability - I'm neutral on this for now. Article certainly isn't a Hoax - ref's to Guardian articles check out and he seems to have got other bits and pieces of news coverage[36] but I'm not sure if its enough to warrant an article -Hunting dog (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Abysmally fails
WP:ENTERTAINER, but under the same heading it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." i.e. not necessarily all.(Sprintakid talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a few references, but I'm still neutral about the article as things stand. William Seaward has been quoted in some reliable sources, including the ABC in Australia and in The Guardian, as well as being interviewed in The Scotsman. He's also had TV and radio appearances. So he isn't without note. It also makes me very happy to know that, somewhere in the world, Shakespearean plays have been performed in bouncy castles. I'm neutral still because of two concerns - one is that it seems like his career may have just started, and that he really hasn't done a lot yet (two productions at the fringe, and a third on the way); and the other is that I'd probably be happier saying that The Strolling Theatricals company is more notable than the director/founder. Once the unsourced content is discounted, we have a solid (short) piece about the company and some lines about William Seaward, so I'm thinking it might make more sense to have a Strolling Theatricals article and redirect to that. Anyway, I'll hold of on a !vote for a bit, in case anyone has any better thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete From a historian's point of view, I see no reason to delete this article. Like seemingly worthless internet blogs, the more pieces of information we have on people, their lives and their thoughts, the more we're contributing to an archive for the future. Unfortunately, only big names get into the books, but because cultural contributors like William are just below the surface of popular recognition (as of yet), databases like Wikipedia must be relied on to keep a record of them. We cannot wait for the possibility that he might become a celebrity. Anthony Arundel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He certainly gets press from many reliable secondary sources. While all of them aren't "in depth" (some are arguably so like the first Guardian one), the combination of the sheer number of them seems to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I've decided to go with keep. The subject has been interviewed in a major newspaper, and both he and his work have been discussed in several other significant reliable sources, including international ones - many of whom directly quoted him in relation to his work. I think the article needs to be trimmed back to cover only verifiable information, and I'd still make a case for a merger with a new Strolling Theatricals article, but that aside he seems to meet (just) the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lockhart

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

Has published a handful of short stories but has apparently never published a book. Fails

WP:COI, given the username of this WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per the non-notable/non-verifiable bit - welcome user and point them in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Christopher Lockhart is a non-notable science-fiction short story writer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Image

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

Was nominated for CSD G11 by

notable. Selket Talk 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not CSDable, but still worthy of deletion. All self-reference and redlinked names. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm ... does anyone disagree with me? --DStoykov (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At last count, four. The pre-June 9 version does little to change my mind about notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you disagree that Nu Image "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" as per
WP:COMPANY? Or do you claim that established criteria are not relevant here? --DStoykov (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Blue Beam

Project Blue Beam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

The article lacks any sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Valhawk (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, badly sourced conspiracy theory, also major parts are a copyvio from here. Huon (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a stupid conspiracy theory.<--- who the fuck are you to say that it is stupid? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete, Article is verifiable through credible sources and cross-referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.161.238 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Movies Made in Shreveport

List of Movies Made in Shreveport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft; no sources, almost impossible to independently verify. An indiscriminate, unreliable list. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was - Clearly no consensus to delete so defaulting to Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence_Kaptain

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

Largely unverifiable, non-notable autobiography. Romanempire (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This quick search shows plenty of sources that show notability, and that the article is verifiable. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a standard for concert musicians? They are much more likely to get press than the typical band/band member, but that doesn't mean every single soloist is notable (even if this one did play with Yo-Yo Ma). Thetrick (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most professional orchestra musicians can say that they have played with Yo Yo Ma in one way or another. That doesn't in itself establish notability. It should also be noted that the non-fiction bibliography references have nothing to do with the content of the article. The article in itself reads as if it was lifted straight from a concert program, and is clearly on Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. It should be deleted.willietanner (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Romanempire, you meant "its", not "it's". M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant self-promotion.
    L0b0t (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Blatant autobiographical, non-npov self promotion Shoombooly (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a player with the very notable groups listed is notable. Given his specialized instrument, he's not a regular member of any one orchestra, but from the information presented he's probably at the top rung of the field. There should be reviews--id the nom think to look? BTW, if all professional athletes are notable, why not all professional musicians? DGG (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Professional musicians need to meet different criteria for notability, as, for example, they are not followed by throngs of media writing hundreds of sports pages. Romanempire (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some here are commenting that is is self-promotion. That may be so in it's current state, but that is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Kevin (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would agree if
      WP:N, and, in the larger picture, what criteria need to be met for concert musicians in general. Romanempire (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1) User:Selket non admin closure. ~ Eóin (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pillinger

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

Contested prod. Claims to be a member of the band Aqua (band). The author changed the Aqua article to reflect this but I can't find any evidence that it's true. In fact I can't find any evidence about this person. Likely a hoax. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin DuPriest

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

No references, individual does not seem notable enough. Article was severely vandalized when I found it. I repaired vandalism and disambiguated a link. He sounds like a cool guy and all, but I don't see need to keep this article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up ... guess who originally wrote this article about Kevin DuPriest? That's right, a user named... User:Kdupriest. Hmmm. CosineKitty (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under

WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Joshua Gardner

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

While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of

the conflict of interest worries
this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's obviously notable that a sex-offender's hoax was exposed by a Wikipedia AfD. Further, the article is factual about its subject's actions, the fact those actions reflect poorly on the subject is the the subject's fault, not the article's. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The secondary sources are rather impressive, including international coverage. I don't think the article serves primarily to mock or disparage its subject either. Maxamegalon2000 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Roosevelt

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

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate that she is notable as a musician. --Michael WhiteT·C 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Few GHits is generally sufficient to declare non-notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only notability is her familily relations, only royalty gets notability for that (ridiculous as that may be) Shoombooly (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage (even only mentioned in passing in an article on the accomplishments of Roosevelts in the present day). Mention in Roosevelt family is sufficient but could possibly be beefed up from sources to justify a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Rock's Effect on Politics and Economy

AfDs for this article:
Punk Rock's Effect on Politics and Economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod.

Original research. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Yonan

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

IMHO this conflicts with the guidelines in WP:Autobiography, and it is written like an ad. See rev history and name of first author. But since it asserts notability, consensus must be reached. Shoombooly (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's written like an ad, indeed. I suspect it's a copy-and-paste from somewhere else. It is somewhat notable, though, so maybe with some cleaning up and referencing it would be worth keeping. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 would encourage the original author not to take the deletion of this material personally or as some kind of judgment on the quality of their contributions - it happens to us all at one point or another. Shereth 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic list/software guide. JJL (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate, unsourced list, too small to be of any use. Possibly written just to state a point. JIP | Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started this page because this information is not centralized anywhere on the web. I hope that with time this could be added to by people who have experienced success or failure with Vista 64. I personally need this list. When I embarked on a quest to make Vista 64 work, I could not find a list like this anywhere. I am certainly not on a mission to make a point, especially not one negative to Microsoft. I personally hope Vista 64 works, so the assertion otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

No one else has bothered to make a helpful list. Wounldn't you all like an encyclopedic reference on this matter?

It is unencyclopedic because I don't have time to write the whole dissertation myself. It is intended to be just a start.

It is too small because it is just a start.

Having said all that, wouldn't you all rather be writing something, and adding, instead of just being a bunch of deleters. Build it, don't break it down.

I can't believe you all would try to break it down before it is even started up. Or, you all would have me write a complete and cross referenced article in one fell swoop. I don't have time for that so go ahead and delete it if that floats your boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to abandon this page for now, as the work will likely be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the difference between Vista and Vista 64. If you were aware, then you would be aware of the need to know what works and what doesn't --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although it is laudable that you tried to spread knowledge, there's various ways to do so. An encyclopedia needs references, and when you post an article that's completely unreferenced and has little context, people read it nonetheless, and, apparently, AfD it. You don't have to write articles in one swoop, but you could easily do most of the work in Notepad first, it's all plain text and some simple commends here in wikiland. As the article stands now, it's hard to maintain, one could list every program ever made, and how would we check all this info? A list of 32 bit programs incompatible with v64 would have been better than including both options in one article. As it stands now, delete. Shoombooly (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put in some of the references. There is no way I am going to write the whole thing in notepad and then import a copy ready article. I was hoping other people would see the value and start adding to the article. I see this page as a very valuable support for the Windows Vista 64 article, which I also started at the same time. I still don't see how anybody can come upon an article on the day it was started and mark it for deletion. That just boggles my mind. Is there a competition to see who can mark it for deletion first? Whatever happened to the talk page? Just boom, come along and bang it out as worthless with two words. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article listing only the programs that don't work would be very biased, and would not be helpful to people who want to know what does work. If there was a list of software that didn't work, and someone wanted to know if a particular program works, and they didn't see it on the list, there would be no way to differentiate what works from what wasn't even tested.
  • this article could get very large, similar to [40], however that list is NOT specific to Vista 64. As far as I can tell, the Vista 64 list does not exist yet. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Articles that long may not be appropriate for wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac. If there's a list of what doesn't work, the rest will probably work, not that biased i think. You don't have to write a feature ready article from scratch, but you don need to assert notability in the first draft of the article, otherwise it ends up here. The first thing to consider is how your article links up with the articles already on wikipedia. Lonely long articles with little context end up here much quicker than short stubs that have context, references and links from other articles. Before writing anything at all, that should be on your mind. Also, it's debatable whether or not a list like that is encyclopedic content, it will need a lot of convincing people, and what you provided so far, apparently, didn't convince everyone. Keep in mind that we all want a good wikipedia, but that not everyone goes about it the same way, but that when there's consensus about an issue, this is usually not anything personal, and you should not get angry if your ideas don't catch on. Better find ways to make them catch on than start an angry rant, because that will just alienate everyone from your point of view. Be patient, and be resourceful. Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have used Vista 64 quite a bit. To assume that any given software works is a mistake. In my experience, getting 32 bit software to work is a moderate challenge. Anyone who has gone through the trouble that I have will appreciate having a resource to go to to find out what works and what doesn't. In todays day and age, it is likely that searchers will wind up at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many lists and tables. I see no problem with another one. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But how will you prove what works and what doesn't? It's probably all going to be original research? (
        WP:OR Shoombooly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Comment I am not a grizzled old hand at Wikipedia. I am just someone who likes Wikipedia and is trying my bit to make it better. If you check out the references you will see that none of them are OR. I have picked content straight from the software's web site (Microsoft, Apple) or from the consensus of software support boards. This does not seem to be OR to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That's true. But they should ALL have a reference. And even then, it just doesn't feel like a proper article yet. How will you link to it from other wiki articles? Shouldn't all programs have hyperlinks to their WP page, and/or homepage? What's the context of the article? How do i get there from the mainpage? That all needs answered. And even then, not everyone may be convinced, be prepared to have discussions about it with people. Shoombooly (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Shoombooly for the constructive input. Those are excellent questions. I will have to eventually provide all the links you note that are neccessary. The genesis of this article is that I had real trouble getting Vista and old programs to run under Vista 64. I don't think that I am the only one who hoped that Wikipedia could provide some help, in an encyclopedia manner. However, it seems now, that there is no one here besides myself who thinks as I do. So, it is probably hopeless. I was hoping that others would see the potential here and run with it. Instead the opposite has happened and it seems likely the article will get deleted. That seems like a shame to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as
    WP:NOT is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a directory. A single page that intends to list every piece of software that is available, whether or not it is compatible with 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, is hopelessly unmaintainable. There are well over 100,000 pieces of software that have been written for Windows over the years; if someone wants to find out if a particular piece of software is compatible with 64-bit editions of one specific operating system, they aren't going to come to this article to find out -- they'll either go to the article in question, or to the software vendor's web site. -/- Warren 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Aside from the points raised by Warren and others above, let's just assume that it somehow can be made into a comprehensive enough listing of (in)compatible software, nicely formatted and reffed and all that. But softwares are going to be updated all the time - who's going to keep the list updated to reflect present situation? And outdated list would be more useless than no list. Also, how much purpose will the list serve? Software compat is improving day by day. Just saying a software is compatible with Vista x64 isn't useful - most probably the user is looking for the patch/version that gives the compatibility. And those are best suited for the indiv. articles - thats where the user will first look. The goal of the author is commendable, but a list in an encyclopedia isn't the way to that end. --soum talk 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fully agree with soum. Commendable goal, but as i said before, be resourceful and find another way to get the information across. Shoombooly (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Nice idea, but encyclopedically a nightmare and legally a nightmare - every single detail would have to be 100% referenced else we could see a class action againt WP for defamatory statements, and the information would be changing hourly as new versions and new MS patches become available. --Triwbe (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that about clinches it. The consensus is clear. I vote to delete it. Delete. All of the above is noted, and the problems are surmountable. This list needs to be made somewhere, but not here. The solution to the legal problems could be to include only software programs that self declare compatibility or not. Microsoft and Apple do this, of course. Most other software does as well.

I apologise for wasting all of your time. I thought I had a great idea to improve Wikipedia. The original reasons for deletion were an assertion that had nothing to do with the need for this information, and I thought was an unfair knee jerk reaction. I imagined that KurtRaschke was on a hunt for pages to delete, and was pouncing before a real analysis of the issue. Assuming good faith was a challenge. For all the words that Wikipedia has written about not taking it personally, there is a real uncomforatble experience here, and it is not a great way to make friends. It is my opinion that Wikipedia needs to do something to be nicer to the newbies. There are a lot of people out there who could help, but if a persons experience is uncomfortable, then they won't want to come back.

Perhaps there could be something bigger than a sandbox for people to propose an article. People could fill in a form where they document the need for the article, and they could certify that the article can be made compliant with all of the "what wikipedia is not" items one by one.

My experience of rejection was uncomfortable to say the least. And it originally appeared that the rejection was for bad reasons. Eventually the analysis became complete.

Perhaps there is a better way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World history japan-cold war

World history japan-cold war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OR, unreferenced essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Creator has posted this school assignment many times (admin-only but it's six times under two names) today. I warned which he deleted. Suggest user education leading to block if he doesn't 'get it' TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (this is also a CSD A7). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ForestWander Nature Photography

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

A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.

However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.

Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.

I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.

The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Response I appreciate the civil and professional comments above by Elan26 - However, there is no need to be nasty about the article or the intent of the author. ForestWander Nature Photography does not stand to make a significant "advertising" benefit from inclusion on Wikipedia and spam accusations should be carefully moderated as this accusation is not taken lightly.

I do however believe that future recognition will be warranted but obviously and unfortunately is not a consideration at this point. Since the concensus is to delete the article then please by all means delete it.

I tried to copy other company's inclusion in wikipedia and thought that it may be of benefit considering the growing popularity of my work.

In addition to the News paper article and Nature Conservancy Competition we have been published in the local Mountain Highlands Traveler Magazine, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and our country church photograph was used on the cover of a recent Rounder Records bluegrass CD. I am not sure that this will add any additional notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.218.178 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am new to using wiki mark up language and to the wiki concept I guess I learned the hard way.

Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers,

Thanks for the discussion and learning experience.

How may I ask for someone to write an article in the future?

Or if possible can I merge or transfer the article to my user page?

Forestwanderer

Counter-response by nominator: I regret that your first experience of editing at WP got you bitten as a newcomer. The unfortunate fact is that a large number of individuals and companies seem to want to use WP as a place to host their CVs or corporate descriptions; these are implicitly (and often explicitly) self-promotional, and more experienced editors here tire of dealing with this kind of thing and are sometimes less courteous about it than they should be.
It's not appropriate for you to ask for anyone to create an article about yourself. If you merit an article, it's likely that you'll get one. (You may have to wait a bit. Among photographers, consider the renown of, say, Ken Domon or Eugene Richards, and look how long they had to wait to get even a short, crappy article. And I can think of plenty of photographers who definitely deserve an article but don't have one.) If/when you do get one, it's quite appropriate for you to monitor it for bias or inaccuracy. Putting aside bias for now, you're free to edit out inaccuracies, but only by citing published sources.
If you're an active editor of Wikipedia, it's quite appropriate for you to describe yourself on your user page, and for this description to link to your website(s). It's not appropriate for somebody who's only a rare participant to turn the user page into something that could be interpreted (even if harshly) as an advertisement for himself.
I'd guess that you have a lot to contribute to articles about West Virginia. I encourage you to work on these. You'd then be welcome to mention your work on your user page, and people might well follow the link(s) to your own site(s). -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC) ... PS I've saved the article to a subpage of yours. 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk the Walk (album)

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

Duff has denied working on a debut album via an interview with JustJared.com. Xerz (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to

List of One Piece chapters. Please note, I'm not performing the merge myself, I'll leave that to interested editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

One Piece side comics

One Piece side comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Fails

WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - possibly merge some of it to
List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge to
List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge with
List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. {{Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply
]
Merge Too long, but notable. Otherwise i concur with the 2 Merge-voters Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 02:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Omnitrix aliens

List of Omnitrix aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Only pertains to the subject inside the fictional universe in the American animated cartoon show

notability. Dabby (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak keep not THAT notable, but apparently important to the series, and it's not going to be possible to merge this into the main Ben 10 article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the minute details of this tv show are not notable. --T-rex 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support towards the deletion of this unnecessary material. Dabby (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced well enough, lists the voice actors, list makes sense as its own grouping, and the article exists on nine other wikipedias. Good enough for me. In the very worst case, this should be trimmed and merged into
    List of characters in Ben 10. – sgeureka t•c 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Sourced, has been frequently edited since 2006, might be too long but that's no ground for deletion. Being detailed about things isn't such a bad thing, as long as it is readable. Shoombooly (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is full of imformation that the fans of both series can enjoy.I also agree with Sgeureka, at the very worst it could be moved, not deleted.Pacboy94 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree with The Rogue Penguin, it is well sourced and essential to the understanding of what the series is about, ben's aliens.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Understanding the aliens is integral to understanding the show. There is too much information to merge into other articles. Ged UK (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People new to the series need an understanding of the characters. Deleting a page for major stuff like this is like, saying Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't deserve a page. Skeletal_SLJCOAAATR_Soul_Striker_of_Vengence (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should fictitious characters deserve a page? The show/game
    Sonic the Hedgehog would deserve a page as it talks about the creation of the show/game, public audience response to it, etc. However, the character Sonic should not deserve a page because it is completely in its own made-up universe, and therefore can definitely be merged into the main article. Dabby (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Then AfD Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and watch your worldview be crushed in an instant. Your opinion of fictional works notwithstanding, fictional topics are as deserving of articles as roads and highways are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)
  • Keep Not much else to say that other havn't. This article is highly important to the show, and would be like deleting any of the multitudes of pages found by looking up the phrase "List of characters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEM036 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is content that should be covered, but there is too much to include it in the main Ben 10 article. This breakout is reasonable and appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_10&oldid=1081073796"