Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 29 March 31 >

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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Upstairs

Let's Go Upstairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable homemade compilation albums made by three non notable so called DJ's. None of the DJ's have any Google hits except Wikipedia. Supersnazz (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources provided, none could be found, and none are likely to be found. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: So let's review. These "compilation albums" consist of three guys in mom's basement ripping tracks from various albums and burning MP3s to disk. Hm. I did that in Christmas present packages, but failed to imagine how
     RGTraynor  20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete,
    WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to copyright violation. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal camah

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

Does not meet

Tan | 39 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oh wait, looks like most of it came from here: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio (

CSD G12). WjBscribe 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Manorlane

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

Article is

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, wikipedia is not a directory for conducting business. I found this page due to edits to biogas (diff) User A1 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

comment - A bot found that this page is actually a copyright violation. See User_Talk:Ecr33. User A1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio. The page is all taken from the different sections of http://www.manorlane.co.uk/ DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio has been answered on discusion page, but this only supports the argument for deletion as spam. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsigned statement claiming that it's not a copyright violation is not sufficient. It is still a copyvio. DarkAudit (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems

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

A seduction company. Article written by a group of sock puppets with probable

COI. Is it notable? See also Nick Savoy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. The last is empty talk - how can I e-mail you? You have not set up an e-mail address. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Stop wasting our time - I tried that e-mail address address and got: "Sorry your message to <redacted> cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta309.mail.mud.yahoo.com". (Just in case that was a genuine mistake - you can e-mail me via the link on my user page.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Odd. My email works - yahoo must have had a hiccough. Try it again? I will try to find your email to email you now as well.Camera123456 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You don't have to "find my e-mail" - follow this link. Re your comment below, I would agree: getting involved with Wikipedia definitely has aspects of a Kafka novel. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems, while in my opinion the absolute worst name in the history of seduction companies, is notable simply for being the largest company in the seduction community. Furthermore, as I wrote in why Savoy should be included in a list of notable instructors, Pre The Game I was a natural, I wanted to learn how to work group sets and get threesomes. Strengthening the transition phase so that you could use it to open after a functional or situational opener, or just dive into conversations, is exactly what I was doing before the VAH. There's also a lot of great stuff Savoy added in reworking qualification, which is also what I was doing before the VAH. What they've done is make it a topic of conversation rather than BHRR, and made it come in waves rather than just one phase by itself. In short he's made the game a lot more seamless with natural game, which for me is the goal, just take what we do naturally and refine it. The 6 types of relationships and learning how to frame those different relationship expectations before sleeping with your girl is also something I haven't heard anyone talk of before Savoy. He's definitely added things to the community. I'd say that Sinn, Captain Jack, and El Topo, who just departed, are at the forefront in Seduction Community Technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthToPower69 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love Systems is notable including:

  • Media presence (articles listed in the article, more at www.lovesystems.com/media and www.lovesystems.com/publications
  • Keys to the VIP (Love Systems mentioned in the Wikipedia Keys to the VIP article, go to youtube and look up Love Systems, it was a (self-identified) Love Systems instructor who won the show
  • It's (the bigger) half of the old Mystery Method. On the Wikipedia Mystery Method page Love Systems is mentioned
  • They published two of the more influential books in the seduction community - Magic Bullets and the Routines Manual - both are highly googleable
  • They just held the largest Conference in the seduction industry, including as guests Pickup 101, Carlos Xuma, and other guys listed on the "notable members of the seduction community"
  • The notable members of the seduction community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community) has since two years ago been talking about the need for a Savoy page and Love Systems is the company he is primarily involved with
  • Or go to the big seduction forums like www.theattractionforums.com or www.pick-up-artist-forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 19:12, March 31, 2008
  • Comment: The only votes so far came from two
    BradV 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

What is a single-purpose account? I don't know who Truth is and I essentially rewrote his page but I have posted and edited a lot of stuff in the seduction community on wiki (and on other subjects too). I used to just use my IP address - you see a bunch of edits on the Mystery Method page with that. It's the one that starts 72. Camera123456 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems not notable? That's kind of funny. Are you guys aware that Love Systems IS the same people as Mystery Method? WikiPUA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.96.34.27 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.
    reliable third-party sources provided. No convincing claim of third-party notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I agree with the user who wrote, "Keep!!!" Savoy is an anchor member of the seduction community. He was mentioned in the Game, consulted on the most popular television show about seduction, and has appeared in the press. Also, he runs one of the largest seduction companies in the world. Deleting him would be bowing to his competitors who are recommending deletion strictly for their own personal financial gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet silver (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does everyone who wants it deleted make claims and then not back them up? It's not a walled garden - there are important links to and from other seduction community pages like The Mystery Method, Keys to the VIP, Notable Members of the Seduction Community, the Pickup Artist TV show, etc. I would turn this around and ask what relevant pages you'd expect to see Love Systems on and don't? I had the idea of making the page (someone else got there first) when I kept seeing Love Systems referenced but they didn't have a page (and guys like Piclkup101 did). Camera123456 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you plan on voting? —BradV 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Some of us like to contribute here and there on Wikipedia, we don't spend all day obsessing over it. I thought you were supposed to state your opinion before each comment so people could identify your position. So I was wrong. The reason some people get frustrated here is that they feel they've entered a Kafka novel. Why can't people just be friendly and respectful and not sarcastic? I don't get paid for this; I just put a couple hours in one day to correct a major omission (tiny guys in the seduction community have big pages and LS had none even though it's mentionned on all of these other pages). No one ever responds to my substantive points, all people do is make snarky comments about my formatting. Seriously...is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be? For example, I see comments that it is a walled garden or that my account is "single purpose". I have responded to both. (for reference with the latter, go to the mystery method page, before I created an account I was the 72.whatever IP address. Camera123456 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to fail the notability guidelines at
    WP:ORG. I'd be willing to reconsider if third-party reliable sources show up. —BradV 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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


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

The result was Delete. - Philippe 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy, Nick

Savoy, Nick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dating coach and pickup artist. Looks very much like self-promotion. Is he notable? See also Love Systems. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is he notable? R u kidding me? He is Savoy. He owns the biggest Pick up company in the world. People from all over the world come to attend his seminars. How do you suggest deletion when you don't even know who Savoy is? I reccomend do some research and homework on your own before you jump to delete other people's pages.Truthfullmee (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Truthfullmee[reply]
    • On Wikipedia,
      not written by the subject of the article or his associates. It is the responsibility of article creators to provide such sources. cab (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment. If kept, the article needs to be retitled in order to be consistent with Wiki naming conventions. 23skidoo (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear are you objecting to plain use of Savoy, Nick. I guess I do see your point there. So it can be: Savoy, (pick up artist)?Truthfullmee (talk)
      • If kept the name would be "Nick Savoy", not "Savoy, Nick" per naming conventions. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accusations? What? That seems an overreaction to what I said. Let's keep the temperature down here. If the page needs to be renamed, it needs to be renamed. It's not a big deal. But when you compare Savoy to the other notable members of the seduction community, guys like Carlos Xuma, and argue that Savoy shouldn't be there, that's just kind of silly. And he is talked about on other Wiki pages like Mystery Method.
I also noticed that two years ago in the "prominent members of the seduction community page" it seemed to be agreed by people who were talking about it then that Savoy should be added - check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the page should be kept, but I agree that the name should be changed. I think he tends to go by the name "Savoy" anyway, not Nick Savoy. Camera123456 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note the contribution history of those voting to keep! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if you evaluate your comments before posting? What has our contribution history to do with what is right and what should be done? If I remember correctly Wikipidea has content for everyone to read whether they post or not. And so when a reader has an opinion on something that matters to them you have to take it into consideration and not blow it off because they don't make living of Wikipedia like you do. Forgive me for I am not interested to post on Barbie dolls and Hitler's moustache but I do want to see a page for Savoy for he helped me with dating issues and he deserves a page here. And so I post. However I do agree that the page should be renamed.Truthfullmee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will ask again, since I just keep getting sarcastic comments when I ask you publicly. What, precisely, is wrong with my contribution history? I've posted on a variety of topics in the seduction community and outside. I made extensive additions and improvements to the Mystery Method page (as 72.whatever). Most of the time I just read. I don't add stuff gratuitously. I don't go onto every page changing a comma so I can feel important. I make additions when I have something meaningful to ad. So I will ask again, politely: what is wrong with my contributioon history?Camera123456 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the contribution history is relevant as an indication that users may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Further evidence of same is lack of knowledge of naming conventions, and repeated failure to sign postings here. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a member of the seduction community and felt like I should log in here and say something. Within our community (which is sizable - just look at The Game on the bestseller list, the various international television shows devoted to the subject, etc.) Savoy is a major figure, having been involved in two of the biggest seduction companies. Not only that, but he literally wrote the book on seduction, Magic Bullets. Whether you're a fan or not, you can't argue against his notability within his field. And his interviews in major magazines and media companies? Come on, how can you deny those? And yeah, of course they're also posted on his site; that's how self-promotion works. Bixolon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The decision to keep or delete is based on policies, not on how many people like or don't like an article. Those who want to keep this article should read
    reliable sources. No amount of passion on this page will affect the outcome. The only way to keep this article is to provide good references. So apply your passion for this subject to reading our policies, then finding the references. If you provide good references, then most likely all the Delete votes will change to Keep because our decisions are based on policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep Wow. I feel like I'm trying to join an elitist clique. Anyway, your website, your rules I guess. Can someone tell me SPECIFICALLY 1) what is wrong with the current notability references, 2) what is wrong when you type "Savoy PUA" in google, and 3) how and why are people like Carlos Xuma more "notable" than the PRESIDENT OF MYSTERY METHOD?Camera123456 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You'll note how people who know very little about a TV series, book series, or local government tend to, out of courtesy, keep right out of arguments about which parts are important. I wrote large chunks or the original Seduction Community article, and spent a lot of time both trying to keep spammers from adding pointless pages to the pages around it. Nick Savoy runs by far the largest and most media-heavy company in the industry - have you tried Googling for "Mystery Method" recently? As a result, a page about him helps give the fuller picture about what the industry is about. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe the content needs to be changed, but constructive dialog about that is the way forward, rather than howling from the peanut gallery. RHaworth - why don't you get us started in this constructive dialog? WoodenBuddha (talk)
  • I believe that you are probably not one of the endless sockpuppets of Camera123456. What does "howling from the peanut gallery" mean? Ain't I started the dialogue by created this AfD? What else did you have in mind? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no non-trivial third-part sources which establish
    notability have been demonstrated, either on the article on in this discussion. --Haemo (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossian productions

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


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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual growth

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of

notability.
(A PROD in August 2006 was contested, hence this AFD rather than a PROD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

talk to me 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Intertestamental period

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

This badly-written article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of

notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Could not have put it better myself. 100% agree. Halfmast (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaha, me and DGG are teh stalkers! Heh. Neal (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep (and exclamations of astonishment). What on earth is this doing on Afd? Even if sub has not heard of this well-known and important historical period, simply running the title through Google Scholar throws up hundreds of good third-party academic references. Halfmast (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Christians use this term to refer to the period before Christ during which no books of the Bible were written (approximately 400 years). The article is badly in need of improvement, but it's not beyond hope. —
    BradV 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh I see, it's a POV issue. Protestants use the term since they don't consider the books written during that time part of the Bible. Catholics don't use the term. But that still doesn't mean deletion is the answer - we have many articles on terms that only one religion or partisan group uses. (e.g.
BradV 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. It's more than that. It's also a widely-used academic term for the historical period between the old and new testaments.Halfmast (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs improvement, but commonly used term in Biblical scholarship. Edward321 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As this article stands it is 100 percent original research. Many are familiar with the term but what authority is cited to define the term? absolutely none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources can be found for this. This may need a cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted. —BradV 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted by User:Jmlk17 ([2]). Non-admin close. —BradV 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan areas in Ireland

Metropolitan areas in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub list, which cites no sources for the population figures, and no (most crucially) no sources for the notion of "metropolitan areas" in Ireland, which appears to be

original research. If at some future date someone finds references in reliable sources which define the novel concept of "metropolitan areas in Ireland", and which cite population figures in reliable sources, then it might be worth recreating something like this article, IF notability can be established. But this stubby list is a misleading piece of original resaerch Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Why has this been brought to AFD when there is an uncontested PROD on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Since the proposed deletion was put in on March 28, and nobody removed it, I think she's right, you don't have to bring it to AfD. Even if it was contested, the big problem is defining "metropolitan area", which usually goes beyond the chief city's limits. Mandsford (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as good as similar articles for others--there just are fewer of them in Ireland. apppropriate summary list. DGG (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (or question) Re: then it might be worth recreating something like this article, IF notability can be established. Notability? Established? What's this got to do with notability or not. If the problem is original research/no reliable sources, I don't see how "notability" plays a role. Heh. Neal (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to recreation (if sourced). - Philippe 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ivie

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

This article was wholly unreferenced, from June 2006 until 19 March this year, failing wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of

notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Maker

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

I believe that this software might be non-notable and inappropriate for Wikipedia  

(Talk)  21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Keep per nom withdraw.

talk to me 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Venetian People's Movement

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

Fails

WP:RS. Could not find refs or news. NN. Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There's a huge number of sources telling us of the party. I just put in the article the six most notable ones, mostly articles from leading Italian newspapers. --Checco (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is now well-sourced from a variety of reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if the sources met
WP:RSUE --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Primorsky Krai

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of

notability
.

I PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested, so I am bringing it to AFD, and should note that as well as being unreferenced, it has also been tagged for cleanup since October 2006. Why do we keep such poor quality material? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We keep this poor quality material so someone eventually will come along and finish the job. As a matter of fact it is one of the least populated regions in Russia, and also one of the increasingly important regions. I for one will eventually need it for the articles dealing with the Second World War part of its history which is completely lacking in the article as it is now. I am not going to argue over it since I have no spare time to "husband" the article now, but if you continue with the deletion, I will re-create it at a later stage. Cheers--
    comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And I will have no objection to its recreation if the new article is referenced! (and I'm sure an article by you would be well-sourced). But while I'm sure that a good article could be written on an important region, a wholly unreferenced piece is not that article. 21 months is long enough to wait for a cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the article does list a reference. What it lacks are inline citations, no surprise with an article of this vintage. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it needs a lot of wikifying, cleanup, in-line citations, and a general overhaul, but I think that the subject (the history of a large region) is inherently notable. BWH76 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The day when we start routinely deleting articles just because we are incapable to reference them and/or clean them up will be a sad day indeed. No matter in how horrible a condition this article is, it contains bits which will be useful to whoever comes to work on this article in the future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does look a notable subject and there is at one reference - accepted that its a mess currently, but this article is certainly fixable if worked at by someone who knows something of the subject.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's only necessary to compare the first four words of the nomination with the article to see that this AfD should be dismissed out of hand. The article is referenced.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks, Ezekhi, that's correct. At the end of a long edit summary, there was a 4-character note "+ref", and I missed that. I still wonder which parts of the article are supposed to be supported by the reference, but yes, there is now a reference. I still think, however, that without citations, the article is no more than an essay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now it is sourced. Whatever shortcomings are, they do not justify deletion.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (admin can redirect if desired) (non admin withdraw).

talk to me 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Unless there's significant coverage for a particular reason, no need to have page until after release. Taroaldo (talk
) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

* Keep The game is now officially announced. Here are the press release 1 2 3 4 5 6 and counting+.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge/Redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War until this firms up and gets some more content.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Redirect - no press release from the publisher confirming that the game is in production, along with magazine articles that cite a leaked and inaccurate PDF means that there's nothing reliable to base this article on. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unverifiable speculation should be deleted, not merged/redirected. --- Taroaldo (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per SkyWalker - Title has been officially announced by the publisher, voiding my objection. These refs do need to go into the main article though. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game seems to have been announced. That's not WP:CRYSTAL. It's a short article, but it's only a matter of time before content trickles in. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The source cited is a Relic fansite quoting an unnamed Belgian gaming magazine. There has been no official announcement from the developer or publisher as yet. --Gazimoff (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. The entirety of this article can be merged into the introduction of Dawn of War with the sentence "a sequel was announced in March 2008, for release in 2009", sourced to the article's only reference. There is far too little information to justify a separate article at this point. When far more substantive information is available, then the article should be reconstructed. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game has been announced in a press release on THQ's website. There is enough infomation to keep the article. [4]Martin23230 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From Relic [5]: "For more information on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II, please visit www.dawnofwar2.com [6]." This site will be up sometime today. Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fursun

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

Blatant hoax, listing awards this person simply has not won. Speedied several times already, appears to be

autobiographical. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional with national team caps

List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional with national team caps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unmaintainable list that seems to be attempting to glorify the players that play in the Salvadoran top division. Furthermore, by restricting the list to current players, the list is subject to

Jay 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back garden

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

No notability. I appreciate that WP has articles on other type of gardens such as 'rose garden' and 'vegetable garden', but these are defined areas with defined content. This article seems to be non-encyclopedic, with much of the information speculative (such as size). Perhaps suitable for transfer to Wiktionary ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article author has entered a somewhat copious rationale for keeping the article on the articles talk page. I'll admit I should probably have "a deeper and more profound understanding of what an encyclopedia is, and s/he at the moment does not understand the encyclopedia-ising process." - which is why I have submitted this for peer review. CultureDrone (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely unencyclopedic. I can't see this as a viable article... This, for me, is one of the few articles that would fall into the catagory of "referenced but still original research".--Pmedema (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I change my mind. The article should be merged into Garden and a redirect pointing to it.--Pmedema (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the following put on my talk page:

"Why is "back garden" unencyclopedic, whatever that means. Your picture depicts you against a snowfield. If I look up that in wikipedia is rhere such an entry. You bet there is." Chasnor15 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

my answer - No... Im on a FROZEN LAKE. No there isn't an article called Frozen Lake. I still say, how can you make the general term "Back Garden" notable (not to exclude all general terms). I might as well make an article called "Desk sizes". There's lots of

WP:RS trust me.... you will get a million ghits... Lets remember everyone... this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Back Garden is un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Back gardens are very notable, existing in their millions and being covered by many hundreds of sources. They differ from other gardens in their seclusion. They are given special treatment by the sources and so we may do likewise. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. I'd never heard this term, but it does appear to be fairly widely used and notability via sources doesn't appear to be a concern. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is less a type of garden than a manifestation of urban architecture. There are only a few US cities with anything similar, but it's ubiquitous in urban Britain. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that building plots are more rectangular in Britain than in the USA, where they may be more square-shaped. Some of the sources do talk about the USA too though so it may be regional. Perhaps the difference arises because the equivalent space in the USA is usually occupied by a swimming pool rather than a garden. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Colonel Warden - as has been shown on many other WP articles, a large number of Google hits isn't by itself proof of notability as defined by WP:N. I modified the query you used above on Google Books to look for "Green Elephant" - and I got 618 hits - so I expect to see a Wikipedia article on Green Elephants any time now :-) Ok - only joking - but I hope you see my point :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is
    The Green Eyed Elephant close enough? There is also a play by the name "Green Elephant" which seems to have enough reviews to make it notable. Maybe I'll make that page :-) Hobit (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

American Idol (season 3). - Philippe 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Lisa Leuschner

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

American Idol contestant who didn't make the Top 12, ergo not notable. Nothing in bio establishes other notability. Wizardman 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the third season of the show. JJL (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    American Idol (season 3). Not notable enough to warrant an article. I noticed that only two semi-finalists of group 2 have articles, and it's because there's other notable television appearances, albums recorded, etc. that the article is based on - not just being an American Idol semi-finalist reaching below the Top 10. --JamieS93 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

KEEP. Lisa is arguably the most successful non-finalist in Idol history. She was listed among the top 20 Idols of All Time by a media critic this winter, placing ahead of many well known performers. http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2008/01/11/top-20-idol-contestants-of-all-time-20-lisa-leuschner/ Her recording of "One in a Million" reached number One for 3 weeks in 2007 on the internet radio station, IDOL WAVES. "One in a Million" finished 11th in the year long rankings (see Idol Waves chart history) and "Sweet Thing", the Chaka Khan song she performed in the American Idol semi-finals also finished in the top 100 Idol Waves chart for 2007. http://www.idolwaves.com/charts Lisa's fiery red hair, curvaceous figure and winning smile were just memorialized by international skate board artist, Todd Bratrud on a series of boards, calendars and other items being marketed. http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/company-news/volcom/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=50571 To delete Lisa from Wikipedia, when she has made much more of a splash and released more albums than most of the Idol finalists, would be a travesty. Tadburger (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadburger (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Delete Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Time(novel)

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

I think that this book fails all of the notability criteria for

books. There are zero Google hits for this book and its author. I prodded this article, but the article creator removed the prod without comment. Bláthnaid 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball Theory

Pinball Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I put a
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to "keep". - Philippe 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) delete. I've changed my closing based upon confirmation that Mr. Lacey did not, in fact, win an Emmy, and therefore does not meet notability requirements. - Philippe 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Michael Lacey

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

Seems to be a non-notable actor, pretty much all roles uncredited or very minor. Polly (Parrot) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aaron Michael Lacey should be included because he is a 2 time Emmy Award honored actor and has worked on over 200 TV and Movie projects. He is a notable and still working actor. I have actually seen him on tv and film, I know he starred on over 60 episodes of In Our Lives, had featured roles and bit parts. The most high-profile thing he's done (I am guessing is he was honored 2 times by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences). —Preceding

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

I've stricken out all the "Inclusion" (apparently = "Keep") !votes other than the first by this user. One gets only one boldfaced recommendation. Deor (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of them are "starring" credits. They are almost all as extras. And nearly all of them are unnecessary and bog down the page. You do not need to list every episode of every series he may have appeared in. It's overkill. DarkAudit (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little more digging shows that the show may have aired on WUSA, then known as WTOP/WDVM [7]. Even that page only deems it worthy of passing mention. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources about the subject, and no significant roles -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I found trailers for the films in question on youtube. If you type in Aaron Michael Lacey on you tube you can actually view the trailers for some of the films, I also found a site with stills of the actor in the movies he claims to be in http://aaronmichaellacey.actorsite.com/photo.html hope this helps.AMLFILMS (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. You need verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You've given us his home page. Not independent. You've given us YouTube. Not at all reliable. Nothing you've given us so far is usable in any way whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poorly written article but the subject is notable.Callelinea (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you figure that? We have nothing but roles as extras and multiple unverified claims. Not one reliable, verifiable, or independent source has been provided. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment In my research the 250 web links posted to the article and then, strangely, was erased. Let me know if you want a list of them again. Also, his starring roles were erased as well. The erasing of the verifiable sites probably were a computer glitch. I would be happy to post them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still in the edit history. Nearly every single one of them is a user-submitted site. I hate to sound harsh, but linking 250 references for an actor who has done virtually nothing but extra roles for the last 15 or so years is ludicrous. The links won't change that reality. Wikipedia is not variety or The Hollywood Reporter. DarkAudit (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of those links were either broken or contained minimal information. You would be much better off finding some better sources rather than just reposting those links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with all you guys he is notable. Who in their right mind would list detailed work that was not true? If he did do that he should have listed himself in blockbuster movies. Also, whoever wrote this article, I think Parot, you need to write more then just two sentences and you need to format the movie. Thanks, Carl. Gorfocsid (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— Gorfocsid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • He did list himself as being in the blockbuster movies Forrest Gump and Transformers, two of the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time -- as well as other prominent movies such as Dave, In the Line of Fire, Twelve Monkeys, and Live Free or Die Hard. But according to IMDb, his roles in most of those movies were uncredited and probably non-speaking. Being an extra, even in popular movies, is normally not enough to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Despite a sizable filmography, he appears to be little more than an extra, and I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sources that might establish notability. It would be helpful if a decent ref (i.e. not IMDb) could be found for his Emmy win, and it would also be nice to know what it says about him in the print source. Incidentally, I did find an article about him on the French Wiki (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Michael_Lacey) which has been around for about two years, though it doesn't appear to add anything to our own. PC78 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know I must assume good faith, but "American Medical Labs" does not exist. Not in that form at least. The primary author has been completely unable to reasonably provide anything remotely satisfactory to
    WP:RS. Author was told that self-published and user submitted sources were unacceptable, yet persisted in trying to supply more of the same after being told. All evidence points to author and subject being one and the same, in spite of denials. Nothing has been found to confirm authors claim of Emmy awards. DarkAudit (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Brian, since you have a personal issue with existence, you are telling me, this does not exist? Do you exist?

American Medical Laboratories, Inc. 14225 Newbrook Drive P.O. Box 10841 Chantilly Virginia 20153-0841 U.S.A. Phone: 703-802-6900 Fax: What do you mean nothing has been found to confrim this guys Emmy Awards, I gave you the number. Emmy regional Emmy in D.C. verified through the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Washington DC Regional Emmy Awards May 11, 1991 and December 14, 1991 call Silver Spring Maryland contact 301 587 3993 President Sue Ann Strake for verification. Can you restate what you told me? I am starting to believe this is more of a personal issue for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain presidential eligibility

John McCain presidential eligibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork, belongs in the main article John McCain or the article about his campaign. Having an entire seperate article for something that at best should be commented on briefly smacks of undue weight. -- Naerii 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you delete and redirect something? (to anyone advocating such)-- Naerii 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete violates the
GFDL, but delete and redirect does not. There's a difference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So confusing. Thanks Dhartung. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that would be merge and redirect ...? -- Naerii 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete and redirect, that means that the current content and edit history of
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge to John McCain Dreamspy (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a controversial subject that the campaign does not want to discuss and it is better to keep it in a separate article. It is actually not a part of the presidential campaign, so much so that here two years into the campaign I just learned that it was even an issue just a few days ago when I was reading over the McCain talk page (talk:John McCain) and found a request to create the page, along with some advice on what to include. I would prefer to bury the topic in a aubarticle - as someone pointed out, less than 1 in 100 click on any of the subarticles, and I think the McCain campaign would prefer to do that as well. Right now no links have been made to the article because I am waiting for it to get a few more contributors to add to it. It certainly is in no way shape or manner a "fork". It is an in-depth treatment of the subject, and is vitally important to Wikipedia to keep. Almost all controversial topics get nominated for AfD, but that is just a vane attempt to squash any treatment of the subject. "Something that at best should be commented on briefly" is the entire reason for burying the topic in a subarticle, while allowing a full treatment of the subject. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – How is it controversial – it is being addressed. Second, the piece is two sentences long. This is better served as part of the main article. List it under controversy it will be more accessible, than having an individual having to type in John McCain presidential eligibility in the search criteria. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you haven't been following the Ron Paul campaign. Controversy sections are not a good idea because just calling something a controversy draws undo attention. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment. This matter is discussed, or has been discussed, at
    WP:Undue weight problems and editing churn. Oh well. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment It's a stub. It could have been created with only one sentence. Or even one word. "Had it been created well enough to survive" is not a valid point. There have been more contributors to this discussion than the article. I would ask everyone to go work on the article and then come back and discuss keeping it. And by work on it I mean add to it, not delete from it, please. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, with an article like this, you've got one shot, one opportunity to put together something that sells itself as comprehensive, balanced, and necessary. You don't, it's off to Deletopedia for your efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I left a note about this AfD at
    Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You are misinterpreting what I said. All articles, for example United States can be created with one sentence, or even one word, and then added to by other editors. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Democrat. You would want it to be included in the above articles. Most people for McCain would prefer it not even be mentioned. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it would also violate
WP:NPOV because non-inclusion fails to give due weight. —  scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't make sense, 2ndAmendment. Tell me why I didn't vote to keep the article, then. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the John McCain article pretty recently, and would advise against merging it with that article for length's sake. Secondly, a merge to
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 would also not be in good taste, because it is well covered within there. Happyme22 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually it's not covered there, because it has not been a campaign issue. All it says is "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the United States (he was born in Panama within the Panama Canal Zone)", nothing at all about eligibility. Ironically the only person to have been elected in violation of a natural born requirement was Ricardo Maduro, who was also born in Panama. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed ironic that Maduro was also born in Panama, and in that case it was the major theme in Honduran politics for months but became President anyway. Thanks,
SqueakBox 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I debated adding this to the article, but decided against expanding an article which doesn't need to exist. Within the Blackstone natural-born citizen information is this little tidbit shortly after the section which 2ndAmendment added to the article. [T]hat all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England:William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62 So even by blackstone he would be classified as a natural-born citizen. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be careful what you ask for. You sometimes get it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Vints (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want to make the case that McCain is not a natural born citizen, the place to do that is a federal court of law, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to report on the topic, one sentence in McCain's article will do.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The very notion that John McCain is not eligible to be president because he was born in the US controlled canal zone is in my view ludicrous, and has indeed been dismissed by McCain's detractors as well as supporters. Since the NYT has run articles on this thing, a thing which ought to be a non-issue, we can mention the question in the article on McCain's campaign, but
    WP:UNDUE concerns indicate that the coverage should be brief. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and redirect, per above, this minor note can be covered better in other articles; this one is full of OR also. - Merzbow (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about OR. Reference #s 1 and 2 [9]are the most useful for a RS encyclopedia and could be used in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 me. Nonsense, hoax, vandalism, BLP, A7... J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martinez

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

Compltely fails

WP:BIO. Not notable... Milk's Favorite Cookie :  Chat  19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskaravelho

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

Apparently a non-notable band. It's unclear whether they have released any albums. There's one source in a student newspaper, but beyond that, secondary sources are missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Aghabullogue GAA. No merge, as the contents of the identical articles is already in the merge target. Black Kite 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aghabullogue hurlers

(View AfD)

This is a series of 13 unreferenced articles on hurlers in the early days of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). They were members of the Aghabullogue GAA club which, having won the county championship, represented Cork GAA in the 1890 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship: the article are identical in every respect apart from the names of the individuals and inconsistency in tagging and categorisation. None of the articles contains any individual information at all about the person concerned ... apart from the claim that in each case the person was "Born in Aghabullogue, County Cork", which seems to be nothing more than supposition.

I recommend deletion rather than merger because there is no referenced material to merge. If someone with appropriate sources want to work on this area, then the players could be listed in an article on

All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship 1890
... if the references are available to write one. However, this collection of unreferenced clones is the sort of thing that bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

If these articles are deleted, the Template:Cork Hurling Team 1890 will be orphaned and should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Ireland winners and cork's notable ,Winners of ones the top prizes in Irish sport Gnevin (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge changing vote as BHG says they are just clones. Merge to All-Ireland Senior Hurling Champions 1890 and redirect articles to their Gnevin (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of cloned stubs article says nothing about the players which could not be said in a list, and some of what is said is probably inaccurate; the rest belongs in an article on the club, not copied into 13 pseudo-biographies. I have no objection to the articles being recreated if there is referenced info available on them, but there is no point an articles unless there is something
verifiable to put in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Gnevin, your merge proposal doesn't solve the problem that there is no referenced material to merge, and no article to merge to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created at least the beginnings of an article on
Tameamseo (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, merger to Aghabullogue GAA seems fine, now that the article exists. BTW, congrats on including references; I have been assessing articles for WikiProject Ireland, and I'm sorry to say that the overwhelming majority of the GAA articles I encountered were completely unreferenced, and the majority of the other GAA articles were inadequately referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tameamseo. If, in the future, somebody wants to write articles that are actually about the team members individually (such as indicating when they were born, when they died, etc.) rather than identical duplicative articles, we can reconsider those articles if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, but when sources appear, recreation of articles would be perfectly acceptable to me Hobit (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete; doesn't appear to demonstrate any notability. Black Kite 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDX (file format)

MDX (file format) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while it may be an actual file type, it really doesn't require its own article. Perhaps it could be merged if an appropriate article was located for it, but it currently isn't notable enough to get its own. FusionMix 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Perhaps we could merge it into an article with this, provided it isn't deleted. What do people think? FusionMix 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge, while it may currently not have sources, it is an important format because of its use by Blizzard in many of its RTS games. The article is informative and it is valuable for those interested in the inner workings of games. This isn't an oddball format by some company no one has heard of, this is Blizzard Entertainment. Rilak (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no references, how can you claim its notable? And why should we believe that? After all, just because the game is notable and the company is notable does not make this notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of sticking a delete tag on every single article which has no references, why don't you find some? There are thousands of articles with a tag that says that it "contains unverified information that should be referenced, please help." I don't see why that you can claim that it is not notable just because there are no references now and because you have not heard of it. Please see the talk pages in one of the kinds of articles, I've added detailed rationale for its inclusion. Rilak (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, there are thousands, and we should work tirelessly to elimintate that kind of stuff, by cleaning articles, rewriting, sourcing, and yes deleting. Just because many articles suck doesn't mean this one is ok to keep being non-notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just becuase it is a 'difficult' task, it does not mean that you take the easy way out and delete it. Notify the appropriate editors and they will fix whatever concerns you may have. Rilak (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the concern is lack of notability, this is the fix. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless a source explicitly says something is "notable", it all comes down to personal opinion — and even then it's just an opinion we can attribute to someone. In my opinion, this file format is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the whole point of what I am saying; it is NEVER a personal opinion. Either there are references or there aren't, and people have to accept that fact one way or another, for keep or delete. There are currently no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - individual file formats aren't generally notable unless there's clear evidence that they're widely used and/or important, preferably from reliable sources. The same applies to .BLP. It's possible that a combined article on the file formats used by the WarCraft games could be notable, but I certainly don't think we need an article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proprietary file formats used by a single developer in its products are not encyclopedic subjects. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Hate to be in the minority here, however if we do a Google News search, as shown here, [10], we see that the file format is covered by reliable – independent – 3 rd source – and creditable sources. At worst case, this piece should be merged. Personally, I think keep. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is confusion here (at least in GHITS terms) as there is a nearly-obsolete MDX format that was part of dBase (multiple index file). It has nothing to do with the Blizzard MDX. I don't think either is independently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – your right about the DBase – In fact that caught my eye when I was searching for articles. However, though I did not look at all the pieces in the search, I believe the format discussed in the article under this Afd, was mentioned several times. Will look later and reassess. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the Google News Archive hits for "mdx+blizzard" are for the Acura MDX. Which apparently you want to buy if you have to drive in one. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is worth saving here? No references, very little content. If this is to be salvaged, it should be rewritten to state what the file format is. B.Wind (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be non-notable.
    talk) 04:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was weakly kept.--

talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sharkula

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

I see no assertion of notability in compliance with

WP:MUSIC. αѕєηιηє t/c 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Brundage

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

None of the claims to importance on the page usually lead to the kind of significant coverage by

specific guideline for people. I can find no evidence that this person is an exception. Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

talk to me 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Coffin Joe (The Horrors)

Coffin Joe (The Horrors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Not a notable person for a stand-alone article. Contents would be acceptable as merged into The Horrors. Hellno2 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Peanut Williams

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

Minor league player in the lowest of the lowest minor leagues. Nothing in the article to claim notability, even being MVP of the minor minor league isn't that notable. Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Holds several records in the Frontier League as well as the GBL and is thus far more notable than a random member of those minor leagues. Article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tiptoety talk 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Generally speaking, full professors who are published are considered notable.. - Philippe 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Bulat

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

I had prodded this as the résumé of a non-notable person (and lacking in context), until I realized that Cambrasa (talk · contribs) had attempted to AfD it but never finished the process -- i.e., no discussion page was made, and no tag was placed on the page. Since technically an AfD was attempted, I figured that PROD didn't apply so I'm taking it here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think this person is of good notability in Russia [1] [2] [3] [4]. so it would be nice if we have some strong reason to delete this .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. The professor can be notable but no notability claims were presented. Lets wait a couple of days what they would come up with Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ XIII General Session of the International Academy of Refrigeration - 2006 | Thermoelectric News
  2. ^ ZT-Spam for 19990305 (That's March 5, 1999) | International Thermoelectric Society
  3. ^ ZoomInfo Web Profile: Lev Bulat
  4. ^ GG


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scriptwriter's Life

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

Hard to see this as anything but an advertisement masquerading as an article. Self-help method for screenwriters, no real notability besides a few blog mentions (for those interested in Ghits, it registers 14 hits, including 3 from wikipedia and mirrors, the method's website, two from Tim Clague's blog (Clague is the author), one more mention also authored by Clague in a different website, two from blog aggregators and one completely unrelated technical Microsoft page. Note also that these blog mentions date back to 2006, so it's not like the lack of coverage is due to lack of time to catch on. Pichpich (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Saturday

Just Another Saturday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable film, fails

WP:MOVIE. The Dominator (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep article now meets
WP:MOVIE #3. The Dominator (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of film-related deletion discussions.The Dominator (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Keep - You're joking, right?Notable director, first film of a notable writer, Peter McDougall, the film caused a sensation when it was shown - see the director'swriter's article "The finished film, .... proved to be a televisual masterpiece. It won massive acclaim, was repeated several times, and won its author the Prix Italia." Also notable for being Billy Connolly's acting debut. Need we go on? Camillus (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please enlighten me on which of the
WP:CSK it meets? I only nominated ot because the article made no assertion of notability at the time. The Dominator (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You're quite right, I shouldn't have said "speedy" - the assertion of notability is in the director'swriter's article, and the fact that it was Billy Connolly's acting debut is in his article - article itself has to be edited to reflect this. I guess I was a bit hasty in my "speedy" as I remember this as creating quite a furore when it was first shown. Cheers. Camillus (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I still think that at least one reliable source on it is needed, I don't think it's even listed at IMDb, when I listed it, it didn't even say who the director was. I admit I didn't make the best of efforts to search for sources, but I didn't think that speedy was appropriate and I could see that PROD would be contested immediately I took it here, I'll try to look for a reliable source. The Dominator (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added imdb link and ref for winning the Prix Italia. Camillus (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. This film exists; it has a notable director, a notable cast. I know nothing about it personally but according to its Amazon review page it can be considered useful social history. Speaking personally, I rely on wikipedia to tell me about films I might not have seen but might consider watching, and films on Glasgow's social history count amongst this class. There might be an element of standard Wikipedia practice I'm missing here, but I can't see a reason to delete the page; it isn't as if the editor who wrote the page made the film in his basement. DuncanCrowe (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal I'm withdrawing this nom, article obviously asserts notability now, interesting how sometimes it takes an AfD to improve an article... The Dominator (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CenariumTalk 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy London

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

This article does not see to pass

talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy keep per Michig. Two sources in the article already assert notability; though the article needs major work, notability is quite clearly established in the article's existing condition. I say speedy keep per Michig's evidence that this is possibly a POINTy nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment poor references too
    talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

keep seems to be notable [1][2][3][4] --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The only valid reference there is [21], the other three are not reliable or valid.
    talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • so this person is notable under this reference [22] , so lets leave the editor to produce more .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable. Dreamspy (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination appears to be in bad faith. Subject is notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable. Needs either re-doing loads or deleteing. 22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhayes383 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The only other edits by this user are to their user page and communication with the nominator.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

  1. ^ Roots Archives - Artist : Jimmy London
  2. ^ Jimmy London vinyl records and CDs
  3. ^ YouTube - Jimmy London - It's Now Or Never - Trojan Reggae
  4. ^ Jimmy London – Listen free at Last.fm
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Ghost

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

Whilst I wish the artist much success, Stray Ghost does not yet seem to be notable -- one track has been produced, with others in the pipeline... – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant releases yet (two self-released EPs, one single in the pipeline), no other credits that would bring him up to WP:MUSIC criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK KEEP Barely passes
    talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Where does it say he has two self-released e.p's?

One is coming out on a label called DeadPilot...the other or Highpointlowlife which has its own wiki page! He is also linked with Matthew Rozeik who has his own wiki page... Keep I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.234.1 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.. - Philippe 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore Angels

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

Article was PRODded, but the tag was removed without explanation. Band with no albums, only 2 self-financed singles. Won a local battle of the bands, the prize for which was a £500 shopping spree - hardly a major competition. Nowhere near meeting

WP:BAND. Michig (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry dude, a local competition where the prize is £500 is not a
major music competition.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Cassette Demo (album)

Early Cassette Demo (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Aside from the fact that this title could probably be applied to thousands of so-called albums, the article is unsourced and probably doesn't exist. It also fails

WP:MUSIC even if it does exist. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIKW

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
A statement on the article's talk page describes the situation perfectly:

"It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of

WP:NPOV"

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. The article can be improved, but the underlying concept and initialism is in used in many books[23] and journal articles[24] so it is notable enough IMO. The article has a couple of journal references already. --Itub (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems obvious from the external links section (as of today) that there are substantial references to be found. Maybe it uses personal pages as links but it's not the authors of those pages that posted the article, hence this is not a
WP:NOR violation. Heck, DIKW is in the acronym finder . Sbwoodside (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bintube Media Player & Newsreader

AfDs for this article:
Bintube Media Player & Newsreader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not-notable, would nom for speedy if there was a cat. No RS. ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no independent
    notability and I do not think there are any to be found. The product is still in Beta and doesn't seem to have garnered much attention from either the mainstream or specialist press. Guest9999 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

According to the opinions above this article should be deleted too Unison (Usenet client), and many others can be singled out as well.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byte backwards

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

Orphaned article since August 2006; no sources listed to support the notability of this term. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavy Hitters

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

DJ crew with questionable notability, tagged as unsourced since June 2007. Has quite a few releases, but none of them strike me as passing

WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, vandalism. - Bobet 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Banking, Inc.

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

Can one of "the leading and most powerful Banking firms in the world" with a "net worth of over $27 billion" really be so "low key, and very private" that it has no Google hits, and neither does its Chairman and CEO? I think this is a

reliable sources. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan bond

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

Potentially non-notable actor (Google search only turns up namesakes. No establishment of major appearances or proof of notable acting career. No references.

talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: references/external links have been added since the AfD notice was put in place. However, the link to the IMDB is to a Thomas Law, not Nathan Bond. I'm confused Comparing the two links, IMO the two people are different (most notably birthdates and credits do not match).
talk) 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete: The person who created the article has also vandalised other articles (here and here, for example), so it would seem that this isn't a serious attempt at creating a new article for Wikipedia. Also, the IMDb link added appeared to me to be an attempt to make the article outwardly appear to be about a notable actor (when, in fact, it was a link to somebody else). The Baroness of Morden (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macauley Christantus

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

Contested prod (by an IP with no explanation). Player fails

WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. In addition, consensus seems to be that youth caps do not confer notability. The article can be easily restored by an admin as soon as he does cross the threshold. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I don't think so. He never played at a professional level, and playing at the under-17 level is definitely not notable itself, even if the subject happened to be topscorer in an international competition (which is something that disadvantages footballers who play in a role different than striker, by the way). --Angelo (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it didn't prevent
      Cesc Fabregas from winning the golden boot at the U-17 World Cup several years ago :-) ugen64 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

This is utter racism. Chrisantus played professional football in Nigeria prior to his move to Hamburg. Furthermore, he was the highest goal scorer and winner of the Golden boot in the FIFA U-17 World Cup. If Players like Fran Merida and Bojan have pages on this website, you have no serious grounds to say Chrisantus should not. I am going to create the page all over again and woe betide the person that comes here to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamisa (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pickett

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

This article was speedy tagged as {{

WP:MUSIC. Thoughts? Skomorokh 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Stompin'

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

I am sure this event is great larks for the Florida students but bottom line is that it is just a

reliable sources beyond the local paper - google news has one hit for "gator stompin". nancy (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to

talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

comment is there a corollary to the

talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom -Neitherday (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Dawod

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

Non-notable kingpin/trafficker/rapper. 2 ghits, 0 articles. Article fails

WP:RS. CSD was declined. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Apparently whoever declined didn't read that the "critically acclaimed" album wasn't sourced as being "critically acclaimed" Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the
speedy delete criteria does it say that the indication of importance/significance has to be sourced. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that declining was the correct thing to do. The claim of notability is there, so prod or AfD are the way to go.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and

WP:SNOW. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Joginder Singh Bhella

Joginder Singh Bhella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable and pointless page Dixonsej (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAA Family

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

This article on a "family" of mascots is an excuse to promote some blogs and other promotional websites. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, cab (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user already expressed his opinion above. —
BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Notability does not have to be demonstrated in the article. Where you thinking about
Taemyr (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This article does not even exist in the Chinese Wikipedia: it is a subset of the South China Athletic Association article. —
BradV 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLD Linux Distribution

PLD Linux Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since the article quotes only primary sources (same for all foreign-language versions), it seems to fail

WP:N. The article survived a mass nomination in March, but the discussion did not hint at any secondary sources, nor were any added to the article since then. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edutising

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

Neologism with few ghits. Article appears to be an advertorial ... I mean, original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be a non-notable neologism. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no
    original research essay; and third on Google, after two links to this article, comes "www.edutising.co.za", an advertising firm, slogan "The art of combining education and advertising". JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CenariumTalk 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttles in fiction

Space shuttles in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article's sole purpose appears to be an expanded version of those "in popular culture" sections that are essentially trivia sections, which are discouraged. While all of this information may be wonderful in articles about the various individual works, I don't see the purpose of having the big repository list, especially as it's not directly related to the real space shuttle program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems I was unclear about my reason for deletion, I am specifically saying that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as no original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason given for deletion. In popular culture sections or articles are not discouraged, and are clearly not trivia sections (according to WP:TRIVIA). They show how notable things are referred to in notable works, where the form a key part of the plot, or the setting. The point of an encyclopedia is to collect information about important concepts in appropriate packages, and this approach is a perfectly good one,and rather common in the academic world. the article needs improvement--not everything is necessarily important,and it should have explicit sources. That's a matter for editing. The nom. doesnt like such articles, which is his prerogative, but not a relevant argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons DGG gave much more eloquently than I could. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article appears just a random collection of films appearances of the Space Shuttle in Film and TV - it is COMPLETELY unreferenced, makes no attempt to distinguish between notable and non-notable appearances or indeed to make any sort of notbility arguments whatsover. It is in addition riddled with OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No substantive reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does need significant improvement (more references, less OR, make it less like a list) but it can still be turned into something useful. Additionally, as was mentioned above, "in popular culture" sections are not specifically discouraged. --Hydraton31 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep i dont find a reason to delete it , if not found to be fit under wiki standard then we must leave it for other editors to fix it or clean it . so i think placing a tag if necessary would fix the solve the issue .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as sole delete opiner neglected to offer a justification, notability conferred by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources referenced after nomination. Non-admin closure Skomorokh 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Ward

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

WP:NOT#NEWS. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Skomorokh 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stanton (actor)

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

Article seems to lack notability, as well as context, but not quite to a sufficient level to qualify for either A1 or A7 speedy. It is, nonetheless, practically empty, hence I feel it qualifies for deletion, but feel a greater concencus should be reached. TalkIslander 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baird street

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

Article about a street and its residents, no indication of what city it is located in, no indication of why it is notable outside its immediate surroundings. Delete. (see below) Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page article is deleted but why is this discussion still continues ?? why dont we close this ??--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Istepanian

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

Was tagged for speedy A7; since there is some claim of importance I've taken it to AfD. The immediate problem I see is that it is largely unreferenced and the two refs provided are not independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. has the article been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much more than "some claim of importance" claims lead investigator of multiple projects with major funding, and over 150 papers--I have not checked them yet for citations. Is ed. of three books by major publishers. The web site is sufficient sourcing for the routine facts of a career, and the papers can & will be verified in Web of Science. However, I am not familiar with Kingston University, which appears to be a upgrade of Kingston Polytechnic, so I do not necessarily assume a full professor there is important. St Georges, similarly, is a respectable but not absolute top-rate London medical school. .DGG (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine. It's good that the article hasn't been deleted yet and I hope it isn't. Thre is also another thing. How do you write to people on their talk pages as I don't know how to being new user on Wikipedia. Thanks Carolyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolyn, try clicking on the talk link next to someone's signature, which will take you to their talk page, then clicking on the little "+" tab or the "edit this page" tab. I'll leave some other useful links on your talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although Kingston University is not a top-ranked UK university in this field, as far as I'm aware, he is a full professor and director of a research centre, co-editor of three books by top-rated publishers, on several academic editorial boards, guest editor of several journal issues, and lead investigator for multiple major projects, which would seem sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The reason suggest to keep this page is because of the major contribution of Professor Istepanian in m-health. He is well known among the specialists in this field as first scientist to coin the phrase.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change Candidate

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

More of an essay based on

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Reeves

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

Was PROD'd, but, has a tinge of notability. Google gives 900 hits for "Gabrielle Reeves" + "editor". I de-prodded the article, but, felt it was best to bring here for more eyes. Neier (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is unsourced and lacks any real notable content in the hits I examined. There is nothing that makes her stand out over others in the industry. --Stormbay (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is written now. What award did she win? References? My threshold is very low for inclusion and this "article of a few words does not do it for me. Callelinea (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google news searches indicate she had at least one Emmy nomination, but everything is behind a pay wall. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails
    WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Casanova

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

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Berserkerus (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Jonny-mt. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny N' The Greaserz

AfDs for this article:
Jonny N' The Greaserz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I assert that this is a non-notable band and should be deleted on per

WP:MUSIC Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Rebuttal

Non-notable? That sir is an insult to the people of Northern Indiana! Jonny N' the Greaserz has an expansive street team and they have made the band known throughout the region. Places have been asking to book them for months now, but seeing as they recently lost their drummer shows have been impossible. A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene.

I have seen second rate hacks and full out fakes get wikipedia articles but The Greaserz get shafted just because you haven't heard of them? that seems very close minded of you.

If CCCP Fedeli alla linea can get a wikipedia article why no Jonny N' the Greaserz?

Rebutting the Rebuttal This is no slight to the people of Northern Indiana. I've seen an on-going misconception amongst several groups, including those writing about musicians, that Wikipedia is some kind of stepping stone to greater awareness. This kind of thinking is actually contrary to the nature of wikipedia. A wikipedia article shouldn't be thought of as a status symbol or a means to attract more support for a group, company, person or idea. A wikipedia article is meant to educate the populous about subjects deemed worthy by community consensus guidelines, such as
WP:MUSIC. To quote you "A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene". This comment in itself shows that you are trying to use wikipedia as some kind of launching pad for the group and that type of reasoning is not productive when considering the scope of the wikipedia project. If this band achieves a level of notability that meets with the standards of the community I'm sure that one day it will have a wikipedia article, but for now I'd have to contend that this group is in no way historically significant. Just to be clear, a deletion here does not mean that the band is NEVER going to have a wikipedia article, it just means the time is not right for them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Skampoe

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

Contested speedy deletion for underground hip-hop artist. Can't find reliable sources and notability is questioned. Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I didn't tag this article for speedy, but after searching for anything I could find on this artist I endorsed its speedy deletion based on notability criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not evident, fails
    WP:MUSIC, very unencyclopedic in tone and language. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

WP:SNOW I'm begging someone to do a speedy close on this per snow. The article has gotten ridiculous with the main editor inserting nonsense paragraphs. The longer this stays up the stranger I feel this will become. I'm going to post ANI to see if someone can rush this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, textbook CSD A7 indeed.

T» 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Carmageddon (blog)

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

Lacks notability, seems to be a short advertisement Salavat (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Tone and information will be update so that notability criteria is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmpireRandall (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Textbook speedy delete case. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed. Debate seems unecessary. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - looks like an A7/website case to me; it's a blog that doesn't seem to have any considerable notability. JamieS93 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability and lack of third party sources--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. Who is this person and why is their blog worthy of an article? Possibly self promotion as both the author and the subject are called Geoff. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article creator Geoffeihinger and blogwriter Geoffrey Stephens may or may not be the same person. If they aren't, then delete, because you can't simply copy someone else's blog into a Wikipedia article. If they are the same, Geoff has the potential to write many interesting articles about NASCAR, Indy racing and Formula One. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As NN website. Andante1980 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August Leffler

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

Temporary minor character in long gone TV show. I don't think this is notable. 650l2520 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon vs Digimon

Pokemon vs Digimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Main:

WP:RS. Essay piece. Taroaldo (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haemo (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalistic Gothica

Cannibalistic Gothica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Unreferenced, dubious authenticity, zero Ghits WWGB (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like something made up by a 13 year old who watched too many gore films. I mean seriously, a cannibalistic demon vampire cult? It's either an outright hoax or someone forgot to mention the name of the series they were writing a fictional article about. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally saw this article as "
    canibalists". First I tagged it as unsourced but after doing some research I found nothing for the phrase or for "Cannibalistic Gothica" so I redirected the page to cannibal. Although some of the information in article appears to coincide with the information in the cannibal entry I can't verify anything that makes this a significantly different term from cannibal nor can I find any evidence that the phrase Cannibalistic Gothica has ever been used.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, at best a misunderstanding of some fiction, yet I feel the source is closer to record album notes than a book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sourcing, no useful Google hits for the term, no apparent real-world notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creator
    WP:RS I'd have made alot of articles when I was smoking that stuff years ago!--Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Delete The kindest thing I can say about this is unsourced. Edward321 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails
    WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Created by indef banned user. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayelle (lesbian)

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

Proposed new term for lesbian. Non-notable neologism. Essentailly the article is spam for a clothes shop. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. The linked sources are just a bunch of blogs and the stuff from said clothes shop, nothing reliable to prove the term is in established use. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete. After looking at the new version of the article, I'm afraid my concerns still haven't been addressed. The article is better formatted, to be sure, but it still lacks the necessary proof of notability. --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard failure of
    WP:NEO. It isn't a "clothes shop", though, it's just a cafepress attached to a pretty basic one-issue website. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fail
    soapbox. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NEO, sourcing is blogs and the for-profit organization pushing this trademarked term for a line of merchandise, some sources note this article as evidence of notability setting up a vicious circle. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The blog that mentions wikipedia, mentions the disambiguation page
talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Urban Dictionary is not used as a source for this article it is simple in the external links.
talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually only the source is listed, i need actual link to the CBS News and Logo sources. the only Google News articles I can find are to an unrelated cable channel in Trinidad and Tobago Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note above vote is from primary editor of article. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually the article is about a movement (Gayelle® is a movement [...]) not the word. The movement looks non-notable, but the discussion should about about that, I think. - Nabla (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Lesbian and add a small, sourced, mention in it. - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the name is presented as a registered trademark is proof enough to me that it is not a movement, but is in fact a marketing term intended to move product. DarkAudit (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a marketing term and it is not trade marked it is reserved, hipshe is trade marked and it is not presented that way. I simply thought that when a term is reserved or trademarked we are obligated to put in the (r) (tm) (C) alongside the name. I removed them. Move Product? what product? Its a term and social movement. I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton is trying to sell product for selling bumper stickers and t-shirts.
talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blatant advertising, and thinly veiled questions on the Reference Desk will not change this from being the case. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, advertising for what? And second of all I have nothing to due with the gayelle or sapphic chic people. I'm not trying to advertise anything. I do think in the quest for all human knowledge we should mention things such as this. And when an editor makes a good faith claim that there are good reliable sources such as CBS to back it up maybe a good faith search and trying to back him up would be in order instead of trying to destroy a new article without giving it a chance. As for your accusations of my thinly veiled questions, veiled as what? What are you insinuating?
talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've said this once and i'll say it again. You'll need to produce the CBS source for it to be used in the article. Simply mentioning it does not help. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As either a newly coined word or a reserved or trade mark, it is not appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If it turns out to be, in the future, a movement of substance, the encyclopedia will be here then to include it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Revision is not as spammy, but the term is still one created and pushed by public relations people, not by the community at large. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more, however that doesn't have anything to do with notability. Perhaps this should be elaborated in the article. Do you have any sources for this? —Preceding
talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is not just notability. It's that the term is a
neologism. The Wikipedia community, especially the denizens of AfD, do not care for neologisms. The movement is too new to give the term time to enter the general vernacular. Three months isn't enough. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment User:NewAtThis has also canvassed my Talk page to change my vote based on added "new" sources. I am not seeing anything much more than blogs and similar "every passing breeze" mentions. There is nothing new that would change my "delete" vote above. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:NewAtThis's User page is an exact a substantive copy of this article. Would it be appropriate to tie the deletion of the content of the user page to the deletion of the article, should that be the concensus? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a discussion best saved for later, but note
    Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is pretty clear. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT YOU WITCHHUNTERS!please don't let your personal opinions influence this discussion, keep it to policy, and don't bring my user page up. thank you.
talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

'What's wrong with aussienews and the daily telegraph, they are legitimate sources, I think the advocate has brought it up too.70.1.209.112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have? Then
prove it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What's wrong with Tango Magazine, Naughty Trends Magazine, Anodis, Aussie News and The Daily Telegraph as sources?
talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Conflicted. I think the subject meets the formal notability guidelines - it is a commercial organization that has filed a trademark for a new lifestyle brand it is creating and sells clothing under that trademark[www.cafepress.com/sapphicchic]. The trademark was filed a couple years ago by an individual living in the Bay Area, California. As part of that effort it has gained some publicity worldwide (with substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) for promoting its brand name as a new term to describe its demographic. Or vice versa - it's a movement that trademarked its name and sells tee shirts. In any event the article, if it survives, should be modified and possibly renamed to be about the organization, not the neologism it's trying to create. However, this article was created by a sockpuppet of a prolific disruptive user, QRC2006 / Boomgaylove, who has made a mess of Bay Area, California articles about queer issues and geography. That clouds the whole issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing issues are not a deletion reason, but rather an opportunity to fix the problem.. - Philippe 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by surface area

List of cities by surface area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails two of Wikipedia's core policies, Verifiability and Original Research. This list lacks a single cohesive source, but rather has been built up by individual editors adding their own cities. Some are completely unsourced, some cite Wikipedia articles as sources (I understand that's a no-no) and the rest cite a mishmash of municipal websites and national statistical agencies. How do we know that these are the world's largest cities, in order? We don't, not at all. Unless an external source can be found that actually ranks the world's biggest cities, by area, this is sadly both unverifiable and original research. A shame because it's an interesting topic. Aucitypops (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Black Kite 07:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills Middle School

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

Completely unsourced, unverified two sentence stub without any external links. Does not assert notability. May not even exist.

talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep Length of an article is not a reason for deletion, a call for improvement is not the purpose of an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think most of the listings in the category should be deleted. It is not notable that a school exists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current standard on Wikipedia is that middle schools and elementary schools are not inherently notable, meaning that you have to demonstrate that there is coverage about the school from secondary sources. This doesn't appear to be a class project on learning Wikipedia, and the two sentences in and of themselves don't show anything significant. Although, as Dravecky says, length of an article may not be a reason for deletion, subjects that aren't inherently notable can't get by with just a stub. Merge/Redirect to new article created by Terriers Fan about the school district. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't appear to have an article on the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, to which this school belongs. If anyone wants to create an "Education" section in Watsonville, California, schools like this one and Watsonville High School can be listed there; but I see no reason for substubs like this to hang around. Deor (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to redirect now that article on the district has been created and everything significant in this article merged there.Deor (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete At this point I must suggest deletion. I am concerned about

Rolling Hills Middle School's page it lists two other individuals as senior administrators. These names do not appear anywhere as senior administrators of any kind (that I could see) on the school's official page. This leads to a concern that, though the school is real, the page was created as a hoax. (Note also that the RHMS page creator has had no other contributions to Wikipedia.) I remain open to additional information. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I motion to close and redirect
talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
After one day, and with a wide variety of opinions? Let this play out. - Dravecky (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and include in the district article. Middle schools are not inherently notable. They are different from established high schools, because high schools almost always have notable alumni, athletic or academic victories of some sort, news articles talking about the construction or expansion--all documentable. Middle schools there are many fewer such competitions, its usually not to identify notable alumni, and not even local papers pay them much attention. If of course something can be actually found for one then it is notable, but experience here shows that is rarely the case. This one is a good example: directory information only.DGG (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that nominator User:NewAtThis is an indef-banned sockpuppet who has made a large number of disruptive AfD nominations. Jfire (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case we should speedy close. We cannot allow noms made by a disruptive sockpuppet result in delete; it would send a bad message to those who engage in such activities. Sincerely, --
      Tally-ho! 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Aw, dry up, Pumpkin King. See my comment at [28]. Deor (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination was intended to be disruptive, we should not humor the sock account by proceeding, especially in a no consensus case like this one anyway. Also, you may want to read
Tally-ho! 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In case you haven't noticed, a redirect preserves the article's history at the redirect page. Deor (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it's a redirect without deletion. Sometimes the article is deleted first and then redirected without preserving the edit history. In thie case, though, if it is redirected, I don't believe the article should be deleted first. Best, --
Tally-ho! 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge this one line article into its district article.

talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business innovation consulting group

Business innovation consulting group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN -

WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing here to show independent notability. Nothing to show that it's a "nationally recognised" team; winning some local competitions is not enough. Black Kite 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Chester East Academic Team

West Chester East Academic Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Semi-procedural nomination. This page was previously tagged for speedy deletion for not asserting notability. Problem is, the page DOES assert notability by claiming that the team is nationally recognized, and one of the editors, User:Headtechie2006, says they have a number of national titles (which are not currently specified in the article). In light of this, the page should be listed for a full deletion debate.

Personally, I'm leaning towards delete right now, but will change to keep if we can get proof of the club's national recognition. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me until the end of the day Monday, I can give a full report of our National record. For space reasons, the website www.qunlimited.com does not keep a full record of the past winners of nationals Lifelongpyro (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as User:Headtechie2006 has said, the judges are more than an "arms reach" away for us. In fact, Chip Beale is a former jeopardy champion and so is Brad Rutter[1]. In fact, Brad Rutter defeated Ken Jennings to win $2 million. In addition all of the moderators have quiz bowl experience of some kind. This makes a team that won at nationals more than appropriate to post.

Lifelongpyro (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The team cannot claim notability based on the notability of the judges. The sources provided are not truly independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Lifelongpyro. This article has shown than they are nationally recognized, an d have won many national titles. Those titles have been awarded by an 3rd party who is at more than an "arms reach" who is also highly qualified to judge groups such as this.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this quiz bowl team is on of 3 school's teams that are in a district that all are very proud of their teams. the district is one of about 12000 students[2].along with the 12000 student in the school district, each student on the team has a family who also cares very much about this and all of the other quiz bowl teams. if you do some crazy math, there are thousands of people who I'm sure care very much about this article. that to me is notable, or worth of note. people take note of the schools academic team when they go to districts, states, and national finals. Also all of the alumni and parents of the alumni, and the boosters also take note of when anything major happens to the team. not to mention that quiz bowl tournaments are sometimes broadcast on television.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, insufficiently notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • references
  1. ^ Pictures and descriptions of our unsurpassed staff of moderators and judges
  2. ^ About WCASD
  • Delete, the sourced content can go to the school's article, but people are unlikely to type two extra words. Wikipedia's search engine should point them to the right place.
    talk) 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafel (band)

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

Non notable band that fails

WP:V. No third party sources, other than the two Hebrew reviews. The fact that the reviews are in Hebrew make it tough, but I cannot read Hebrew nor can my computer translate it. Either way, the reviews, by the titles of them, and the length of them, seem as though they are not notable enough to keep this article. Lack of english sources to verify notability. Unsourced information has already been deleted, but the article is still full of unsourced information. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like a reason to put forward a weak keep, is there any reason why you think it meets WP:MUISC as that is the point of contention. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but an article is not obligated to meet any of WP:N's sub-pages in order to be on Wikipedia. Instead, WP:N (and WP:MUSIC) is a guideline of what probably should and should not be on Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:NOT are inclusion policies, both of which this article passes. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC is a guideline which must be followed. It does not state that a band is notable if an editor has heard of them. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The CD universe and spirit of metal sites are non notable when describing a band on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BIG Comment The new sources are non notable. Look at the reviews. The reviews were done by members of the sites. They are not official band reviewers.(is that a word?) Undeath (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will probably nominate Tvangeste for deletion too. That band has nothing notable about it, and has not been improved since 2006. Basically, the comparison of notability of the band in this AfD to Tvangeste just furthers the fact that the band is non notable. Undeath (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This band is among the better known bands in the Israeli metal scene. Of course, my personal knowledge shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia, but the current sources are enough to prove notability per WP:BAND. I can read Hebrew, and i testify that the reviews on Metalstrom and Metalist.co.il were written by the websites' staff members, not submitted by amateur contributors, so that counts as a professional review per WP:BAND. Also, at least one album that they released was notable enough for the AllMusic radar. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly qualifies under criteria 1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. A casual google search indicates that Arafel has been the subject on metal-observer.com, maelstrom.nu, metalmessage.de and metal-invader.com. These are not user submitted sites like metalstorm or metal-archives (both of which also mentions Arafel, of course). For those wondering, that's a website from Canada, USA, Germany and Greece respectively that have either reviewed or interviewed an Israeli band that's made up of Russian expatriates. Most importantly, the band is apparently notable enough to merit an entry on
    Rockdetector. The site's been down for the past few days but you can always look up google's cache. As an aside, I strongly feel that the nominator should have brought this up at WikiProject Metal to raise attentin among those of us who might be more experienced with the subject matter. --Bardin (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; I've stubbed the article, which can't make up its mind whether it's about the company or the drink. However, some of the Google News hits are just about sufficient to not delete this. Black Kite 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fast

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

Fails

talk 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Non-notable per nom. Advertising. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in need of extensive overhaul plus advert and cruft removal but subject has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have personally seen the company profiled on both Current and CNN in the last year but the generic name renders a simple Google News search unwieldy. - Dravecky (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Needs spam removal, but rough Google Search/News Search establishes enough non-trivial secondary source coverage for notability. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all it would take is about 6% of these 50 Google news hits to not be press releases to establish notability.
    talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Speedily deleted by

User:Nick Dowling. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Lords of the blade

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

Fails

WP:V, and I doubt seriously that either can be fixed. Izno (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was 7-3 keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Centre

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

Non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. No citations or outside links to verify any information provided. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Nom, Non-Notable, and not much about the mall itself. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C)
  • Keep. Size is 223,327 sq ft., and it also serves as a transit hub. See http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=931668 ("Transit officials also plan to speed up bus times along Princess Street between the Cataraqui Town Centre and the Kingston Centre during rush hour.") which seems to refer to it more as a transit hub than shopping centre.--Eastmain (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The local daily newspaper, the Kingston Whig-Standard, has covered the Kingston Centre redevelopment story extensively, but hides its archives behind a pay-wall. But to see the headlines, go to http://www.thewhig.com/Archive.aspx and enter "Kingston Centre" in the search box to see headlines like these:
    • Mall employees in the dark: Kingston Centre retail workers are wor...
    • Kingston Centre has been seniors' gathering place
    • Out with the old, in with the new: Wrecking ball hangs over Kingst...
    • Kingston Centre home of new bus terminal: Set to open Aug. 2
    • Kingston Centre controversy: As owner of mall, Loblaws has right t...

--Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fairly large city, and many people seem to go there every, some for travel, just like Gloucester Road, which is notable. Basketball110 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That basically boils down to
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The main argument here seems to be that no reliable sources exist to verify the info in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep Whig Standard info sufficient.
  • Keep Article is in significant need of expansion but should cover more than 50 years of history for the mall on that site. Notability established but a rewrite is strongly called for. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whig articles plus already included sources are enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, and I would assume that this new transit center will be included in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilirida

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

This article is apparently about an "unofficial region" in the

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Back to the term, it isn't really a neologism as such, but this article is an attempt at popularising it, or a hoax trying to give undue weight to this concept. BalkanFever 03:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Not particularly notable in the Republic of Macedonia, and not a region. It doesn't have any kind of borders. BalkanFever 05:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll just point out the fact that all the keep-s come from contributors from the Republic of Macedonia in some sort of a co-ordination effort to remove the article. I'm not sure if it's notable or un-fictional enough - it just strikes me as a fact. --Laveol T 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then just give your opinion should Ilirida as article be deleted or not. Then we will have one Bulgarian view on the topic. (Toci (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Comment - Imaginary things are not welcomed on Wikipedia I think. If it like that Wikipedia loses the reputation and the quality, not quantity.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep Is a term used in Albanian Nationalism, article could use clean-up, but it's an actual term than exists beyond this article. Gets 66,300 hits on google, about the same amount as

Greater Slovenia's 357. It's notable if those are. Zazaban (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

But there is such a thing as the
flat earth society. Also, what those people want is actual Scotland. Zazaban (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, there is an article on United Ireland, which, although it is discussed, does not exist. Should that article be deleted? Zazaban (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse Ilirida with Greater Albania. BalkanFever 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to recreation if it happens. - Philippe 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Dome

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

Unsubstantiated future project.

talk 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. Google searches have led me to trustable web sites that prove such thing could exist in the near future. Until the building is completed. we can put a "future/upcoming" template on the article. Lily1104 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until its built it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete as blank article. ... discospinster talk 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.spoof's Quotes

AfDs for this article:
Mr.spoof's Quotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't make any sense and is just a random collection of quotes. I would've nominated for speedy deletion but it didn't meet the criteria of anything.

Your Hancock Please 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doni tamblyn

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

Asserts notability but no 3p sources per

WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • comment Currently problems with
    WP:RS
    and overly promotional, but seems as though it should be notable.
Comment Based on the article, the lower-case start to the last name is a typo in article creation, easily fixed if/when it survives the AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tatham

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

Fails

WP:N. Wikipedia is not a news source, coverage was only temporary. ⇔ EntChickie 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the spirit and intent of the consensus not to cover news events is that not every one-off news item or report is deemed worthy of coverage. In this case, the story was widely reported internationally, and was covered repeatedly over nine months. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, this seems to be on the "keep" side of transient coverage. JJL (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The events are definitely notable. (Perhaps a title modification would help.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable and well-covered but this article needs immediate attention for wikification and encyclopedic tone. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nominator, this is not In the News. Is there anything about the biography that makes this person more than a news event? Not that I can see. He appears to be an official doing his job, and merely doing one's job is never sufficient for encyclopedic coverage. If the person is still being discussed in a year's time, there will be need of an article, but the fact that many people are saying the name today does not mean that the individual biography is notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politicians are all officials doing their job, you can't say they're "never notable". As I said above, this has been reported on since April 2007, so for nearly 11 months. If we're going to set arbitrary timeframes that make people notable - and you've said a year - he's nearly there. Or did you mean another year from now? And then, where do we stop? Delete everything that's not being discussed any more? --Canley (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also remember that
    notability is not temporary. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Plague

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

Non-notable. This person has been involved in everything from a band to vegan cooking, but doesn't seem to qualify under

WP:RS. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to comment, I've done extensive Google searching and not found any reliable sources to back up the claims of notable musicianship. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At this point, no way to make it past the bar -- as a regional/local journalist. In his previous life, as a musician, a number of small independent acts. They may or may not have had some influence, but they did not get significant sales. The article reads like a vanity or homage page and fails NPOV. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how any link fails WP:RS, or would qualify as "cruft". Anyways, he been involved several bands which have releases on notable indie labels, and is/was an important in the genesis of
    WP:MUSIC
    criteria
  • #1 "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."(e.g.[35][36][37]),
  • #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels,"
  • #6 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable,"
Finally, fully aware of
WP:GOOGLE, I submit that a google search brings up close to 6,000 hits for Plague/Ploeg and his projects. A google books search finds 3 books, a quote from of which I've just added to the article. Certainly this article could be improved, but certainly Plague is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Yilloslime (t) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. 1 - none of those sources are a) reliable or b) about Plague
  2. 5 and #6 - Those may be true of Mukilteo Fairies, but they do not confer notability to Plague. The book quote is about MF, and the book doesn't even mention Plague/Ploeg. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book mentions "the lead singer" of MK. All the sources are reliable. I contend that Plague, MK, and BTPNLSL are intimately related and best handled in one article rather than 3 separate articles. Therefore, if MK is notable, and MK is covered in the JP article, then that's an argument for inclusion of the JP article. But if you want to split out MK and BTPNLSL articles and delete JP, that might be a way forward, but I think WP is best served by having them all covered in the same article.Yilloslime (t) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, fully aware of all the caveats in
here. If the bar for inclusion is set so high as to exclude this article, then there are thousands more music articles that are going to need to go too. Yilloslime (t) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sometimes his first name is listed as Josh and other time as Joshua; sometimes his last as Plague and elswhere as Ploeg, and the entry also covers his band Mukilteo Faires, hence the "advanced" google search including all these terms. Excluding "marvel" reduces the count, slightly to 5250, so I think my point still stands. I don't see how the sources in the article aren't
notability, not about how well the article is sourced. There are plenty of WP articles with no sources, and none of these have been AfDed. Yilloslime (t) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The lack of reliable sources has already been addressed. As far as your take on AfD, I'm afraid you're very, very wrong. Troll down the list for any given day at AfD, and you'll find several causes proffered for nomination, among them the non-existance of reliable sources ... something that trumps non-notability, come to that.
 RGTraynor  19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I was asked to comment here because I've previously edited this article. I edited it because Mr. Ploeg emailed the photo submission queue to submit and photo; in that same email, he also told us his birthdate with the intent of having that added to the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect/Merge (yeah, I'm fun that way.) I'm not seeing anything notable on him. However, Mukilteo Fairies are pretty plainly notable and article on them should be created. Currently they redirect to Mr. Plague, but should be the other way around. Above cites clearly make them notable. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster talk 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Briginshaw

original research which is all of what this article is. Notability by Wikipedian standards seems unlikely. -WarthogDemon 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Withdrawing nomination. I made this because I wasn't sure, asked an admin and they weren't sure either. Seems notable so I'm withdrawing. -WarthogDemon 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improper nomination. Go elsewhere to acquire discussion of this kind (examples: talk pages and RfC.

talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Walter

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

I created this article, but I'm unsure about genuine notability. I'm taking it to AfD for consensus. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Speedy close" is simply the term for an AfD, when there are only keeps and the nom withdraws. You wanted feedback and that's been provided. It would seem to be a bit indulgent to keep it running further. Ty 12:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayata

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

non-notable, nonsense ~ priyanath talk 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin 3: Invasion of the Pikmin Planet

Pikmin 3: Invasion of the Pikmin Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Vehicle (VGV)

Video Game Vehicle (VGV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A

neologism or an advert for The Game Coach - take your pick. Sources do not seem convincing. A Google search turns up hits like this one - doesn't seem to match the definition in the article. PROD contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Jerusalem (game)

Conflict in Jerusalem (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe that this is an non-notable video game  

(Talk)  00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Earl

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

N.n. civil servant - head of short-lived agency that failed and had to be wound up. Not done anything else. Cutler (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Perretta

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

Does not meet

WP:RS. Taroaldo (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_30&oldid=1081073171"