Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance of Hope

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

Inheritance of Hope is a tiny, new non-profit organization founded last year by two parents. The mother is dying of cancer and its focus is on children whose parents are dying.
According to their website, their achievements are publishing two books, holding fundraisers, and taking six families on a weekend retreat. The books are not available through any major bookseller; I presume that they are self-published. The only assertion of notability in the article is having gotten about 250 words in the local-events column of a small local tabloid-newspaper (one-ninth the circulation of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as nominator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) * Comment from article author:[reply]

Per your thoughts above, I have added additional media coverage sources (here) and on the original page. Of note, these sources include "The Ledger," a New York Times Affliate in Lakeland, Florida.

Cornwall-on-hudson.com, August 26, 2008 [1]

The Ledger, July 3, 2008 [2]

Poughkeepsie Journal, June 23, 2008

The Sentinel, New Windsor, NY, June 16, 2008

Times Herald-Record, June 10, 2008 [3]

Putnam County News and Recorder, June 4, 2008 [4]

Sounds from the Hudson, June 2008 [5]

U.S. Army Bands online, April 22, 2008 [6]

Cornwall-on-hudson.com, April 21, 2008 [7]

The Ledger, March 9, 2008 [8] —Preceding :unsigned comment added by Edmlr (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• • Thank you for adding sources. These are all local newspapers (and two that amount to company newsletters for one co-founder). None of these rise to the level of significant coverage by a regional or national media organization, which is the standard for Wikipedia articles on organizations. The Ledger article, for example, is a three-paragraph announcement that the founder's twin sister held a small fundraiser for the organization in her home. Organizations that have articles on Wikipedia are expected to be able to produce national or regional, or at least statewide, media coverage. A list of short articles in very small newspapers, all of which are in their (or their family member's) immediate backyard, is not enough. Can you provide any evidence of media coverage that reaches at least across all of New York, or preferably all of New England? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from article author: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmlr (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I read the information regarding "notability." After reading it, it seems to me that Inheritance of Hope fully meets the requirements. You assert, "We generally require at least one major story in a regional or national newspaper or magazine." I didn't read that requirement. Instead, the link you provided lists the following requirements (bolding is my own):[reply]

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

It goes on to say:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.

I consider the coverage to be significant, representing multiple sources (under "See Also" in the article), and is not trivial or incidental. Trivial does not apply to articles about Inheritance of Hope based on the following:

Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

In addition and per your request, Inheritance of Hope was recently featured on a broadcast of Sound of Life Radio Heart 2 Heart. Their coverage is quite extensive, covering much of the Northeast (NY, NJ CT, PA, MA, and VT). Their station map can be viewed at: http://www.soundoflife.org/sol/stations.php.

• Keep as per reasons listed by the author.Demetri1968 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination.

From CORP: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale..." [emphasis mine]

From

WP:N

(note 6): "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories [emphasis mine] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

The list of sources that you initially provided were all minor news stories by local newspapers. However, I cheerfully accept the newly added assertion of a regional radio broadcast as sufficient indication of notability. It does not meet the standard requirement of national or international activities, but I think it's good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa West

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

Nothing has changed about this actress since the last AfD for her. She fails WP:PORNBIO- no notable awards won, no notable contributions. I didn't nominate for a speedy since this article is substantially different from what I recall the last one was and seems to have been created by another editor. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be non-notable and obviously non-verifiable. And although not a reason for deletion the state of the article is justweird (JUST WEIRD). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (DELETE) as failing
  salting would be a very good idea too, given the recreation following the last AfD. – Toon^(talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete She may not pass
  WP:SALT. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budgerigar Society of Pakistan

Budgerigar Society of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

N.n. society. Orphan. You can infer the content from the title. The cartesian product of species and nation states fills me with dread. Cutler (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete unreferenced spam of non-notable society. Fails notability and verifiability policies and guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An organization in Pakistan that supposedly promotes budgerigars or "budgies", also referred to as parakeet. From what I understand, budgies can be found in Pakistan in the same place as in the U.S.-- in a pet shop. The link to the society's website will take you to ads for "Progressive Pet Insurance" and PETCO (don't miss the $10 off in-store coupon). Even if this is an operating organization, I can't see that it would ever be notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel dellaporte

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

Only ghits are to a few model sites, Wikipedia, and LiveJournal. Regardless of her claims, she does not show up in IMDB as having been on "Law and Order." I do not feel she meets

• Delete per
  WP:BIO, no evidence to suggest any notability. Basement12 (T.C) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

After looking through Wikipedia, at several other models listings on here, I think than enough work has been accomplished here. If more work should be listed, then more work can be listed. Would the agencies she signed contracts with be helpful? Magazine issues numbers? Photographs? Maybe simply to be listed as a model and not as an actress would have been a smarter move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMarie1966 (talk • contribs) Aug 28, 2008— AnnaMarie1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whoa. She's "known more [for] the fact that she is only five foot eight, then for the fact that she is an accomplished fashion model (and actress)"?! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability and verifiablity criterias
  WP:V. Than there is someone's law about the naming convention as well. George or Hammer I can't remember. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Tucker

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

)

• Keep - It seems to me that that Tucker may be a "minor" player in the music world, but of more significant note in the pagan world. The NewWitch magazine (cited several times in her article) is a pretty significant one one in the neo-Pagan world. The most recent article mentioned was the cover article for the issue. The
  talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree, S.J. Tucker is a fairly significant player in the pagan/festival music world. She is extremely well known on the festival circuit and in the pagan music field; perhaps the article could indeed use more references and links to illustrate this. As Kenllama notes, the sub-culture in which she is well known is significant in size, making this article significant in readership as a Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnutic (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — Mnutic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep S.J. Tucker has appeared multiple times in NewWitch magazine, which is a major Pagan and New Age publication. However, on the more mainstream front, she has positive reviews from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Arkansas Times, which are listed by Wikipedia itself as predominate news sources in their region. Those sources would seem to indicate a level of independent recognition even outside her religious/cultural niche. The proponent of deletion claims insufficent independent recognition and self-publishing render Ms. Tucker nonnotable. Self-publishing alone does not render her nonnotable. The article may need to be flagged for a re-write and include more independent sourcing, but deletion is inappropriate. Wikipedia's notability guideline for a topic (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable) is met here, particularly in the case of the NewWitch articles, bolstered by the coverage in the print media of Memphis and Southeastern Arkansas. We are reminded that "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity". S.J. Tucker is notable; the article should stay. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I note that this is the second time this year this article has been tagged for deletion with no real reason given. How many times are we going to go through this? What's Wikipedia's policy on articles that are tagged for deletion multiple times, the tag removed, and then tagged again? --Parcequilfaut (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (failed to login before, whoops.)[reply]
    • Further noting that upon another review of the entry, the Memphis
      Commercial Appeal article as well as newWitch, witchvox, and Cathrynne Valente references already appear as citations in the article, meaning that it will require little to no editing to meet the independent recognition criteria assuming arguendo that it does not already do so, and that the second request this year for the article to be deleted could be considered inappropriate under Wikipedia's policies about re-nomination of articles. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Keep - references establish notability in the field. It's not just WP:MUSIC (which is a reason to keep things unequivocally, not a reason to remove things) - this is not a robust nomination - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as others have pointed out, while S.J. Tucker may not be a major label musician, she is highly known and respected in her particular niche, and as such her article should not be deleted. Scarletwoman93 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - S.J. Tucker is not a major label musician, but she and her work is very important to neopagan culture. She and her work are well-known and respected for their originality, their innovation, and through her work S.J. Tucker is able to connect with everyone with whom she comes in contact. Her article should not be deleted. Libraryraven (Libraryraven) 06:40, 07 September 2008 (UTC) — Libraryraven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Multiple articles in newWitch, Witch's Voice, and other references show that she is a notable performer in her niche. Note further that publishing music on one's own label is not in itself criteria for deletion. Independent music and independent record labels are not new, and cutting out major labels can result in a more profits for the artist, which is why former major label artists like Barenaked Ladies and Bradley Joseph have chosen to self-publish certain projects. JenKilmer (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject appears sufficiently notable. The name of the article needs some discussion, as it doesn't appear to conform to Wikipedia standards. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - SJ Tucker tours nationally and is well known. She isn't just some local-town musician who made an album; she has an extensive catalog of albums and a large fan base in cities all over the United States. She is a great example of a successful independent artist. Tfabris (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "self-published on own minor label, no substantial independent recognition." I think this statement can be easily argued. I see no wrong in being self-published on your own minor label, in fact I see it as commendable and therefore should be emphasized with her amount of success as an independent artist. I feel that last statement is false all together. I have been seeing SJ Tucker perform live for five years now starting in Memphis when I was 16. Her fan base has grown significantly over the past five years and she has toured all over the country. Not only is she self-employed but she actually makes enough money to survive on what she does. You can purchase her albums through a number of different sources, not just from her. I think that is the most amazing thing and envy her for her perseverance and success as an artist. - Foamyseabreathes (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (CDT) — Foamyseabreathes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Milar

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

Little claim of notability. No supporting references. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per a number of policies and guidelines and non-verifiable in accordance with [{WP:V]] Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the page looks like nothing more than a way to get his name associated with a couple of 'interesting' links. It reads like some sort of advert for a medium / astrologist Stijndon (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CSD#A7. Being a polymath of the occult is not in itself does not constitute notability. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was going to relist but article now has references (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident at Victoria Falls (1991 TV film)

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

)

I could only find one reliable source that shows notability and that was a review. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added some references to the article that show notability.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Whittington

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

Harry is known only for being mistaken for a pidgeon, nothing else. Possibly merge this with the Dick Cheney hunting incident article Fossett&Elvis (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Notability does not expire. The incident makes Whittington notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with PMAnderson there. That even if Dick Cheney didn't shoot Whittington in the face, he would be notable without it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my problem with that is that the article doesn't appear to address his notability beyond the getting shot in the face bit. If he is notable for other things than surely they should be included in the introduction and in more detail in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete if he is notable only for One Event than per relevant policies and guidelines he should not have an article of his own and should infact be redirected to the article about the event. If on the otherhand notability is established away from the single event and appropriately referenced for verifiability than that would of course change things. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability for one incident is intended for the sort of people on whom we would have no information were they not involved in some disaster. But Whittington is the sort of official who would be marginally notable without the incident. With it, he is distinctly notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject was the focus of significant news coverage from reliable sources even before the vice president shot him in the face. His fame may come from that one event but his notability had been established well before that. - Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to wiktionary. Dicdefs belong there
  Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is more than a dictionary definition and is a significant part of small-town radio. --Eastmain (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Can you cite your source for that information? So far the article is completely unreferenced.—
  Improve 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep despite the unreferenced nature (and other problems) of the article there are the search results here and here which lend some credence to it not being "just a dicdef" or thing made up. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found this reference. Axl (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Zittel's Marina

Zittel's Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete per
  WP:NOT wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a non notable business. I had previously attempted to have the article speedy deleted under G11 (blatant advertising). Basement12 (T.C) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This may be salvageable. I'll be looking for sources; please do not close prematurely. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe this passes
  WP:NTS, and I've found and added a number of independent sources. I've also toned down the duplication of services, so it reads less like an ad. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I don't think local newspaper articles (from the town where the marina is) and very brief mentions in travel guides (which basically say 'you could stay here') or online directories of marinas gives the subject notability, Basement12 (T.C) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You're entitled to that opinion, but looking at the rest of

WP:Notability (airports)--applying the same thresholds, a significant port should be notable, and this marina is the only public boat launch that serves a large part of Thurston County, Washington. Nor am I done improving the article--I see plenty more ghits which need to be combed through for RS mentions. I agree that the article as it appeared when nominated was disproportionately commercial, and have remedied that both by cutting redundant information out and adding in historical context. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

However the marina is not the equivalent of an airport. A port is the equivalent of an airport. A marina is the equivalent of an aircraft hangar or a car park. Basement12 (T.C) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like a general aviation airport. It's a boat launch, which is the place you switch from ground to aquatic transport, just like you switch from ground to air transport at an airport. It's not "just" a set of docks, which I agree would make it the equivalent of a garage. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nine references to source seven descriptive sentences from local or guidebook sources, and information about portable toilets is in the second sentence. Flowanda | Talk 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a business directory or a guidebook. Would be appropriate for Wikitravel, but their license isn't compatible with ours.
  talk) 12:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Neville

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

Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.GDallimore (Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —GDallimore (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply let's start with

the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability. Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[3]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[4]
• "Sources,"^[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[6]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising,
  self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7]
• "Presumed" means that substantive coverage
  in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[8]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needlz

Contested prod. The artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep appears to have notability in his specific area with verifiability of some of it here. Although, I agree the article needs rewriting to include what precisely makes him notable (awards, etc). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proper sources for notability are added to the article. There are none now.--Boffob (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not finding proper sources for this biographical text even after checking the UK Google search provided above. RFerreira (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Comment probably just being dense but, I was under the impression that it didn't matter whether the website is .co.uk or .com that as long as "search the web" was clicked the search was not limited to the UK persay. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It does influence the order of the links shown. For example, if an article appeared both on the CNN and the BBC websites, UK Google would put the BBC link before the CNN one, and "regular" Google based in the US would do the opposite. So there's a "local source" preference. The same kind of preference occurs with languages. For example, Google.ca has both an English and a French version, and the same unconstrained search (all websites, all languages) will result in a different order of links: if Wikipedia has an article in each language, the first one to be listed will be according to the language preference.--Boffob (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that clarification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks the necessary reliable coverage for a biography, and more to the point continues to lack said sources days later.
  (jarbarf) (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lipshitz

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

Subject of article fails Wikipedia:Notability, as neither being a gang member, being shot, shooting someone else or being sentences to life imprisonment are criteria for notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete* Not notable - very small time Mynameisstanley (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)# Mynameisstanley[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Possible
  WP:BLP1E as well --T-rex 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A full,
  neutral biography could not be written with the sources available. Cheers, CP 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete to be fair I don't even think
  (jarbarf) (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was The result was delete per

Amended rationale: Restored page histories and performed a redirect to Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kroon

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

)

• Delete not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article per
  WP:ONEVENT Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I'm not American, so I may be slightly out of touch here, but this feels like a case of
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Yes, he's the pastor of Sarah Palin, but I don't understand how that makes him notable. I wouldn't be averse to a merge and redirect to Sarah Palin, as any notability he has is a direct result of his link to her, but that wouldn't be my primary choice here. Then again, I'm a Brit, so what do I know about American politics. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Any potential redirect should point instead to Wasilla Bible Church --T-rex 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  GRBerry 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note. There is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church. Keeper ǀ 76 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPThe delete arguments would be more convincing if someone would explain why they have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ or Jeremiah Wright for deletion. Trinity United got a wikipedia page on Feb. 12, 2008. When a individual is chosen to run for President at least in part because of the support she will draw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

• Comment is there any possibility that we could actually try to work within Wikipedia policy, instead of Elan26 policy. Notability isn't transferable, and
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a REALLY bad keep argument Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (Edit conflict) Note - With respect, I'd like to point you in the direction of
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Essentially, just because a similar article exists doesn't create an argument for keeping the one being discussed. It's also used to avoid precedent being formed - each article is discussed and weighed on its own merits against the various content policies, rather than against other articles or deletion discussions. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment So AfD Trinity United Church of Christ and I'll support it, assuming that absent the presidential campaign nonsense it has no encyclopedic value. I generally don't start AfD's, and no editor is obligated to do so, so my or anyone else's failure to do so is not an appropriate basis for impeaching the credibility of my vote. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now The Jeremiah Wright situation isn't simply an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison in that it does demonstrate a useful matter: this sort of individual can easily become notable enough due to the surrounding controversy. Kroon arguably meets notability as is, and so it is completely reasonable to keep the article now given that he seems to be increasing in the national spotlight. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not sufficiently notable on his own,
  WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I was the admin that felt this met the criteria for an
  A7 deletion, and speedy deleted it. I don't see any improvements to the article or article sourcing, and so of course, still say delete. Per everything that Wikipedia is not. Keeper ǀ 76 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. He's a random pastor at a random church that just happens to have a famous congregant. There is no independent notability. Resolute 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The entire first section falls under
  WP:NOTINHERITED, depending on how you look at it)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I took out the
  WP:COATRACK, but someone will undoubtedly try to reinsert it. If you take out the Palin attacks, there's nothing encyclopedic left in the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I went through and wikified all of the references. Other then the ones regarding his daughter's illness, everything was from either a blog or other
  WP:COATRACK controversy onto Sarah Palin's VP candidacy. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - ignore the Palin issue, and we have the long time pastor of a very influential church in the region. This should meet our notability threshold even if just barely. --T-rex 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any sources that show this church to be "influential" beyond Palin's attendance? I haven't found any yet...Keeper ǀ 76 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't about the church, but the pastor. While the church may be notable, that notability is not inherited by the pastor. --Farix (Talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A church's notability is inherited by its pastor. What do you think has made the church notable in the first place? --T-rex 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloomberg, Newsweek, and Time Magazine were making it more notable, and has nothing to do with the pastor (yet the church is up for afd too). Synergy 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A church's notability is inherited by its pastor" Really? Where does it say that in any policy or guideline? Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is ludicrous. Maybe the church is influential in Wasilla. There are less than 9,000 people in Wasilla. Notablility isn't transferable, coatrack, etc etc. I'm feeling like a broken record. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Sarah Palin is entitled to her faith, but it doesn't confer notability on the pastor who leads the church she attends. Almost a candidate for CSD except notability is asserted - but since it is not established - delete is the right answer.  Frank  |  talk  23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent notability.
  T) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Pileon delete (which means this is per everyone but stray keeps). Synergy 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - without prejudice to a merge later. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant accomplishments and records

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

)

• Merge back to Kobe Bryant per previous precedent and basic common sense. No good reason for this article to stand alone. Enigma ^message 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Zodiiak (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a good page for anyone who just wants to focus on finding info of his achievements without going through the main article, it will get clogged if this info is added. Dwyane Wade doesn't nearly have enough awards as Kobe so the page itself is in good readable shape. Im guessing your going to do the same with the
  talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I actually think all these types of pages should be removed and merged into the article. There's no need to have every single little statistic about a player as a wikipedia article. Just doesn't make sense from a historical or factual perspective. And in reality, Kobe only has a few NBA records. Wilt, for example, would make for a stronger argument. Zodiiak (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & rename: Several athletes have similar pages (see Category:Career achievements of sportspeople). Bryant is definatly notable enough to have his own. --Ted87 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cirt (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Hunters

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

The newspaper sources both, in Polish and English inform that the formal investigation is on-going (example). Real names are protected by the courts. Online references as well as this rather sensationalist article use initials only. In his final court statement one of the convicted said he’s innocent. Wikipedia is not a

• It's a case that has been reported internationally, check the link to the BBC. It quite obviously is notable. That some investigating is ongoing is neither here nor there: BLP has not been violated. On the other hand, the people's convictions were upheld when they appealed. What is the problem and what WP rule has been broken? Please specify which. Also note that there are two interwikis for the article - so this is a notable case. Malick78 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention
  crystal ball, yet the article predicts nothing. It just documents past events (the convictions) and says that police are investigating other people. That is a present situation, nothing regarding the future is predicted. Malick78 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Firstly, your article link above is 3 months old (written on June 2nd 2008) - do you have something more up-to-date to substantiate your complaint? Secondly, they have been convicted in a fair trial - so that must be reported. The fact that they are appealing, doesn't mean we have predicted the future. Where do you get that from? We have said they have been convicted. Past tense. Hence, there really is no problem. Malick78 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to newspaper Wiadomsci, the defendants have not ruled out appealing the verdict ("Obrońcy nie wykluczyli wniesienia kasacji do Sądu Najwyższego."). Written on July 30th, 2008. Hence, they still haven't appealed. Malick78 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article however states that they have started their sentences and no appeal is ongoing ("Do sądu nie wpłynęły wnioski skazanych lekarzy, którzy odpowiadali w procesie z wolnej stopy, o odroczenie wykonalności kar". Written July 30th. I'm finding it pretty hard to find a current article confirming that an appeal is ongoing. Could you please? Malick78 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason given as to why we should delete. Seems to be a well sourced notable event. A stated above even if an appeal is ongoing (which seems unlikely) stating what's happened to date is not a
  WP:CRYSTAL violation as it's documenting what has happened not guessing about what may happen. Dpmuk (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the article is definitely not crystal ball, at 'in the news' we have articles on currently unfolding events such as
  Benea (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - just so my view is nice and clear:) Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold back your horses. Our article presents all subsequent statements as facts, even though all convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.[21] That's
  newspaper article, which is against policy. The article is unstable and unless the editor who created it makes an extra effort to correct its tone, there's no need to have it around. One more thing, please read thoroughly what you quote in your defence, instead of bolding statements (as if we couldn't see). The quoted article says in Polish: "Wyrok nie jest prawomocny. Prokuratura nie wyklucza apelacji." (The sentence is not legally conclusive. Prosecution does not exclude appellations.)[22] --Poeticbent talk 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Horses rapidly receding into the distance: the people in question are in prison. That's quite conclusive. Your article is 3 months old, so could well be out of date... But what the hell, even if there is/were an appeal - so what? Add that to the article! Edit! Don't delete the whole article using fallacious 'crystal ball' arguments which have nothing to do with anything. WP can comment on developing situations - and no predicting the future is necessary. Malick78 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, have you actually read

Benea (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• I believe newspaper reports will also be reporting on it as if it's fact. The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectally justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them - although not a legal professional I believe this is the case legally and IMO is certainly the case morally. But even that's a moot point in a deletion discussion as that's no reason to delete the article, just change it. The case is now so notable that even if they are later found incocent it would still easily meet our
  notability guidelines so would still be kept. Was writing this at the same time as Benea hence the similarity's in comment are accidental. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Since Poeticbent has failed to cite any valid reasons listed in
  WP:CRYSTAL isn't listed) Malick78 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
2. Any other content
   not suitable for an encyclopedia

--Poeticbent talk 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, vaguely quoting policies does not provide sufficient reasoning. How do these policies apply to the article? In what way is it violating them? This especially applies to your second 'reason' - how is this not suitable for an encyclopaedia? Your first reason, that this may be a breach of

Benea (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would appreciate if you refrained from
  wp:npov guideline, than don't write at all. I'm not in any way obliged to fix anything. By the same token, WP:AFD is still the most appropriate venue to express my concerns. --Poeticbent talk 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's absurd. So if anyone is convicted of a crime, WP cannot write about it if they 'claim' to be innocent? A fair trial, that took 5 years to prepare, said they were guilty... and one 'claim' of innocence outweighs that? Secondly, FYI, putting an NPOV tag on the article would have been the "most appropriate" thing to do - not taking it to AFD. That is just a waste of people's time. We could be improving other articles... but here we are, arguing with you. Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, you are obliged to give your reasons for thinking why this article should be deleted. If it is for a violation of
  Benea (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, I beg you
  assume good faith in your personal assessments of my motives. --Poeticbent talk 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Addendum. I’ve seen it so many times, editors claiming that with the little work the article is salvageable; voting on that premise, and than doing nothing to improve it. Meanwhile, the author of the article is increasingly combative,[23] which is not a good prospect for an improvement. --Poeticbent talk 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but why AFD instead of an NPOV tag? It was the wrong way to tackle the problem you perceived to exist. Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Poeticbent - it would appear that your reading of these policies is very different from ours. I respect your right to intpret these policies differently but as I'm sure you're aware WIkipedia works on consensus sio I suggest you stop trying to change our minds with arguements that, by common consesus, don't stand up - I will happily listen to a new arguement if previous cosensus holds that it's a valid arguement. I'm not going to comment on this discussion any more except if, what IMO is, a valid arguement for deletion is given (seems unlikely IMO) as the result of this discussion is, IMO, obviously going to be keep and I've spent enough time on it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid reason to delete has been presented. Crystal does not apply to documenting past events. Any "newspaper tone" can be cleaned up without AfD. BLP is not violated as we have reliable sources -- court convictions. Renata (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent points by Dpmuk: "The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectlly justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them". If they do succeed in appealing or look as though they might succeed, we can reword things. Until then I see no reason not to assume the convictions are valid unless anyone produces a source suggesting they're controversial or disputed. (I came here from the debate at Template talk:Did you know). Olaf Davis | Talk 08:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Poetic, please read this from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD: "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Let's eliminate the NPOV line of discussion shall we? Malick78 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to all. This debate isn't even closed, and yet the author is already
  edit warring and removing warnings suggested by himself instead of this AfD nomination, without a sign of any second thought. Isn't that inflammatory? --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I asked you to provide reasons for your tags (such as the one about it being like a "magazine" article) and you instead talked about other (IMHO tangential) issues. Thus I removed them. Furthermore, some of your tags specifically said "see the talk page for details". Yet on the talk page, you gave no details. And didn't when asked. The tags were therefore anti-productive, and being used, it would seem, just to spoil the look of the article. In a rather inflammatory way. Ironic eh... Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

National Treasure 3

National Treasure 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future film with no reliable documentation is a violation of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As original PROD-er. Article fails
  WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no cast, not even in pre-production. Violates
  WP:Crystal. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This article is premature. Fails
  WP:CRYSTAL. Bring it back in 24 months if the project moves beyond speculation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Whilst it is inevitable that a third film will be released, is way too soon to create an article. ~ NossB (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Premature, no reliable sources used, IMDb doesn't count. I don't think a third film is inevitable, but let's wait till there's an official announcement before making an article on such a production. 23skidoo (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It isn't even in pre-production for crying out loud. This is a
  WP:CRYSTAL poster child. JBsupreme (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one-sentence
  snowball here. Cliff smith ^talk 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was merge to

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

)

No non-wikipedia google hits. -- Mark Chovain 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I assume then you're nominating it for being non-notable? Try Googling without the non-standard letters. For example [24]. Seems legitimate.--
  Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree, it is a real script. However, at this time it really is just a dictionary definition. I suggest we merge to
  Shui language, an appropriate article with plenty of room, and let it grow. If it reaches an appreciable size, we can break it out separately later. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Shui as per Xynmax - seems like a good solution, and as he said, can be broken out later. Buckshot06(prof) 10:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Shui language. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete.

The Bayou tsunami Ep

The Bayou tsunami Ep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

EP for band which itself has no article nor any apparent notability Editor437 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ep has been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records

• Deletealbum of non notable artist. fails
  WP:MUSIC. see above afd for artist. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, failing
  WP:MUSIC#Albums. No coverage of its own, and artist is not notable per AfD. --Amalthea^Talk 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

)

No assertion of individual notability beyond being in a notable band. Notability is not contagious. -- Mark Chovain 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHIJ Our Lady Queen of Peace

CHIJ Our Lady Queen of Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable school - very little context -- no citations, categories Editor437 (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article contains no indication why this school would be notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Cheers, CP 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Galapagos Effect

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

Article combines two really separate topics -- each may be notable on their own, but not together -- 1) The insular nature of the Galapagos Islands; 2) The insular nature of Japan's cell phone market, dubbed "The Galapagos Effect" ---- An article with this title would have to primarily be about (1) --- while (2) is less an example than an allusion Editor437 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So
  delete the non-notable one instead of AfD'ing the whole, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - My reading of the article is that the term "Galapogos Effect" is being used to identify that the Japanese Cellphoen market is isolated list the Galapogos Islands allowing it to evolve differently from other cell phone markets due to isolation. A search through google news shows only the one article used as a reference. The term "Galapogos Effect" also appears to be used in economics, and also separately in biology when searching through Google Book and Google Scholar. However, the usage there does not match the content of this article. I say delete as a
  neologism. If the other senses of the phrase are notable, an article can be created for them, but the material from this article is not the basis for any such new article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a
  neologism. Google shows it was used in one newspaper (sited in article) and in one blog. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Ohrid 172N crash

2008 Ohrid 172N crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was proded after talk at

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a general aviation accident. They happen all the time. No evidence that the crash will have a lasting effect. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable one of many general aviation accidents that does not meet aircraft accident guidlines for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not at all notable, though of course tragic. GA accidents in Cessnas happen frequently, and there is nothing that makes this one notable. Fails project guidelines. Yes, there are reliable refs, but they at best indicate that this is a news item, and is not long-term encyclopedic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH (and wow I can't believe there is really a
  WP:AIRCRASH). JBsupreme (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I had considered suggesting transwiki to Wikinews - however, I recalled that the licensing details of Wikinews vs. Wikipedia preclude the transwiki option. Is there a template available that would state that the desired outcome would be to compose a Wikinews article without invoking the concept of transwiki? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that there is, but I doubt that this even rises to the level of Wikinews, as it is now days old. If you watch the NTSB briefs, there's a fatal GA accident every few days, and it's rare that they merit news mention outside of the local area. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Akradecki is right. I'm very active on Wikinews, and familiar with the workings there. While local interest only stories are permitted, the crash itself is too old to qualify for news. For the record, however, Wikinews does have a requested articles page that should suffice for such requests. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources strongly indicate notability. Is this one of those "insufficient number of fatalities" things? Let's evaluate notability by looking at the sources. Everyking (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyking can you please elaborate on why you feel this is notable beyond a typical aviation accident? It is unfortunate, yes, but this is really fodder for a local daily newspaper not an encyclopedia. Even one that isn't limited by the constraints of paper. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the sources—that is emphatically not "local" press coverage. In any case, I support including anything if there's substantial press coverage to demonstrate notability. Arguments like "this happens every day" and "only a few people died" are meaningless to me. Everyking (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The deeper question here is whether a WikiProject notability guideline can take precedence over the general notability guideline. However, I don't think here is the place to debate this weighty issue, though it is relevant. Consensus (Consensus ≠ Unanimity) here is that the WikiProject notability guideline is applicable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not taking precedence, simply being cited. Which guidlines an individual chooses to cite are up to him/her. It would be different if we were talking policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as air plane crashes are verifiable and notable not just for news purpose but for those who research the topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
  Tally-ho! 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not news.
  talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Citing news articles does not makes us news. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
    Tally-ho! 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Indeed it does not. Your point?
      talk) 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • La Grand, the point is that there's a difference between a major event that rises to encyclopedic level and a minor event, with little more significance than an automobile crash, which is reported for the moment in the news media, but has little or no lasting significance. We don't report auto accidents because they're common place. So, unfortunately, are Cessna crashes. It would be helpful if you would explain why you think that this particular Cessna crash is an event that rises to an encyclopedic level. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because so long as it is verfiable and editors and readers believe it belongs here, the paperless encyclopedia should keep it. If anyone doesn't like the article, they can worry about and work on articles they do look and want to edit. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
          Tally-ho! 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete per nomination. No objection to redirecting to a mention in the airport's article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Scott Macdonald-Anderson

Scott Macdonald-Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biography where the only claim of notability is unsourced - Google brings back nothing relevant either ratarsed (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:ATHLETE as a gymnast, nothing else in the article seems notable. Basement12 (T.C) 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment the article claims he was a national champion, which I'd have taken as passing

  WP:ATHLETE - had it not said that, I'd have WP:PORD'd this; had it been sourced, I'd have not nomiated this... -- ratarsed (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It says "amateur" champion which in a sport where (I think) professionals exist normally means a failure of

  WP:ATHLETE. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't know of any professional competitive gymnasts though? (at least not in the UK). I'd be happier if the claim were sourced though -- ratarsed (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect that, often, it isn't an issue, a large proportion tend to be U18, but (though I can't currently find a source) I think any successful gymnasts, like most top Olympic competitors, would be proffesional, even if their income is through government or sponsor funding. Basement12 (T.C) 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be surprised how many are listed as "student" as their occupation by FIG (which has biographical details on most international gymnasts); As a side note, if a gymnast has a FIG profile, then that's generally a sign of probably notablility, and I'm unable to find one for Scott (That said, thee were competitors at the Olympics who are yet to have their profile put on the FIG site) -- ratarsed (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find any sources. Fails
  WP:ATHLETE Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment I can not find anything on Scottish gymnastics (online) from that far back at all. It could be likely that he was notable back then I am just uncertain how we could find sources to support it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With merge suggestions. I encourage discussion of mergers on the talk page or boldy executing one. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RExcel

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

Contested prod. Article is about a software add-in, only sources found are coding documents. TN‑X-Man 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search for sources finds nothing that could legitimately fulfill
  木 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless sources found. If sourced, the add-in is almost certainly notable.
  talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with R where it would be germane enough. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added links to the sources and references and hope that this is now sufficient. I followed the role model of te R Commander entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.57.15 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as article quality is ordinary. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Insufficient material for an article. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Compare with the R Commander entry, which has less information and is an entry on its own. The people behind the R main entry will quite probably object merging this entry.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cat Radio

Pirate Cat Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no sources, created by the subject, but IMO not quite spammy enough to speedy as spam. A previous version of this has already been deleted at

• Comment - some third party sources have been added but the article needs to be wikified, I feel the article should have been given a chance to be expanded by adding tags, I see no history of that.--
  X 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Can you please elaborate? What do you mean by wikified and adding tags? Any examples would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikification has happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Created by user:Piratecatradio is enough for me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Instead of making an arbitrary deletion comment, such as the above, read the third party news articles and give feedback in regards to what has to change on the page to keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:VANITY is in play. Secondly, this is a micro station. Third, it is an article about pseudonyms, and therefore it doesn't represent verifiable facts. Can someone go look up "Monkey" in the phone book? Can someone verify that it's his bedroom, and not his big sister's? Third party reviews are well and good, but without verification, and with this being a vanity article, we have too many deletion guideline violations. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Who is Monkey: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.14.98/slices-9819.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.182.130 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and totally rewrite. The current article is a mess of unreferenced claims and some original research borders on being soapboxy due to it's POV but the topic appears to be notable. There is coverage over a 10 year period in the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, as well as some smaller weekly publications in LA and the Bay Area. Being an unlicensed station, this article doesn't enjoy the automatic notability that those with an FCC license get, but it's received enough attention that sufficient references are available to make this article both notable and verifiable after some work.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and re-write to be more encyclopedic. References to reliable third-party sources prove notability but this article needs clean-up, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Utgard Loki. I would also like to add that I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years and have never heard of this particular radio station. Google turns up nothing but MySpace pages and their official website...
  Galaxy 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Google news turns up nothing recent but if you click on "all dates" in a Google news search you'll find a number of articles from the bay area NBC affiliate, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times. The article needs to be rewritten with these references in mind.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, a

Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak and reluctant delete Keep without prejudice. Notwithstanding the need for rewrite and verification, it seems to be in the nature of such ventures that if they begin to approach the threshold of notability, especially non-local notability, they get stepped on. It has a mention in Pirate radio in North America, and it is hard to justify anything more. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind. I am not going to object to the substantiality of the coverage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The article has a significant number of significant sources (which focus solely on this topic) that more than meet any reasonable reading of WP:N. I'm really unclear what policy-based reason people have for deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten I feel the current article demonstrates notability fair enough. RFerreira (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTPRN

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

Non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 26,000 Google hits link to lots of independent coverage. Also, the article notes several blue-linked hosts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There are a lot of blog references, but no clear
  ignore the rule in the interest of improving Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. Article fails to establish
  notability of the subject and appears promotional in nature. The combination is fatal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal waltz

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable story/webseries (article isn't clear). No references provided, appears to be an amateur production. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A quick search yielded no sources to prove any notability. Basement12 (T.C) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fiction. Rnb (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Homemade fiction of some sort. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing worth of note here. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, previously deleted per afd & copy vio. Ѕandahl ♥ 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpon

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

Lots of ghits, but none in the first half dozen pages use the term in this way. The original source in the article went to a wiki mirror; the current source does not appear to be much more reliable. Prod contested by IP user with no comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent from previous AfDs. GlassCobra 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GlassCobra. Basement12 (T.C) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:SCV) – Toon^(talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Good catch. The deletion discussion was here -- I missed it because of the final "s".

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is a little deceiving to call it just "a bus stop". It is a physical station on the
  Ottawa Rapid Transit transitway and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation specifically notes that this line is notable and that articles on stations are "questionable". DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Most of the stations on the Transitway are rather more than mere "bus stops": they are major pieces of infrastructure that make stations on several rail systems look puny. Tunney's Pasture is one of the largest Transitway stations, so this should definitely stay. --RFBailey (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per common outcomes' specific mention of Ottawa's Transitway system. Tunney's also functions as a notable bus transfer hub, comparable to subway or LRT stations. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Tunney's transit station is not "just a bus stop". Although it's not indicated in the article, the station is a major destination and departure zone for serveral thousand commuting public servants who work in the Tunney's Pasture government campus. Second, the station also serves as hub for other OC Transpo bus routes that do not travel on the transitway, including a few busses from the Gatineau (Quebec) bus company the Société de transport de l'Outaouais. Rather than delete it, I suggest someone improve the quality of the article.Demetri1968 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Ottawa Transit system is mentioned as a specific example on the common outcomes link above of transit stations which are valid for articles. Additionally, if this is deleted, the other 20-30 related articles about the other major transit stops on the system would also have to be nominated and deleted.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per comments above. The nominator appears to have misconstrued common outcomes, as it provides that articles on hubs in major cities can be kept. I note that this same editor also proposed the deletion of Kent Station (OC Station) on the basis of the same "just a bus stop" rationale just under three years ago (consensus was to keep)-- it would appear that circumstances and consensus have not changed since then. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Kent "station" is just a bus stop; Tunney's Pasture certainly isn't. So if Kent can stay, then this definitely should. --RFBailey (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure that there is that much of a difference between the two of them -- the fact that Tunney's Pasture has more infrastructure than Kent is more a factor of the Transitway being below-grade in that location than anything else. It's irrelevant, however, because both are transit hubs in a major city, and thus are both likely to kept as articles as per common outcomes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The precedent spelled out at
  WP:OUTCOMES is actually for dedicated bus rapid transit lines such as the Transitway to be treated as more notable than conventional bus routes along regular streets, because they serve a function more akin to that of a commuter rail or subway line. And the reality is that while we do regularly delete plain old "shelter and pole on the side of the road" bus stations, we do tend to keep stations on major dedicated transit lines. The precedent as written is actually kind of fuzzy and ambiguous — the line about individual stations being questionable is basically in conflict with the line about certain hubs in major cities. Although this could certainly use a few stronger sources (media coverage of the fire, perhaps?), I'm going to go with the keep side here — but I'm also going to post to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to request a revised version of the precedent. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Informed Consent (website)

Informed Consent (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.